Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 15

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coffee (talk | contribs) at 12:17, 15 February 2022 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyanendra Pratap Singh (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 14 February 16 >

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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Pratap Singh

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

There is no SIG:COV about the Wiki subject. And, He/she is not a notable Police Officer as per WP:SEC. Possible CPE/COI conflict is focused here.NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: if this person met notability, then why not this person [1]? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 02:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So why have you nominated this one for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: In here also: [2]. Can you find something between user-user relation? Though I can not comment out yet, but I am seeing a trail. My apology if this comment hurt or disturbs you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 03:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I agree that someone who held that rank in the Indian Police is notable but this page needs expansion to add additional information beginning with what they did or were involved with whilst serving at any of their positions.Gusfriend (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Pandey (actor)

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

Non Notable actor Aloolkaparatha (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not quite seeing notability here, at least not yet. Pandey's appearances have all been in secondary/supporting roles, so invoking WP:NACTOR's "significant roles in multiple notable films" criterion would probably be a stretch. I don't think the awards mentioned move the needle too much either. Of the sources cited, the only one that discusses Pandey in depth (not just a passing mention) is this one. While it seems to be from a reliable outlet, the story seems to be mostly sourced to an interview with Pandey himself, raising independence questions. Moreover, a single source is not enough to meet the GNG, and my attempts to search for coverage in English and Nepali have come up empty-handed. While Pandey may become notable in the future, I don't think he's crossed that threshold yet, although I'm glad to reconsider if there are additional Nepali-language sources that I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think redirect to this would be a better option than delete. If he is unable to pass these criteria. Is award is enough to pass the notability criteria except of GNG. Fade258 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists like that one generally only include notable people, so if Pandey isn't notable he should be removed from the list (and thus there'd be no point to a redirect). The awards probably aren't enough on its own: neither qualifies as the sort of "well-known and significant award or honor" that contributes to notability. I'd be fine with draftifying the article as an alternative to deletion, if you'd like, since there's a chance that he'll become notable in future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But he played a significant role in notable tele-films/setial of Nepal in Tito Satya and Jire Khursani. Fade258 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Architect Institute

The Global Architect 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:GNG and WP:ORG Assyrtiko (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. This is without prejudice to the possibility of a merger, which is a normal editorial action that can be taken following a discussion on an article talk page, or under WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion and reflection, I consider it appropriate to amend this closure to no consensus on the grounds of poorer quality of argument on the keep side. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Flag

Captain Flag (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 prodded this a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". User:Toughpigs deprodded ith and expanded, with the edit summary "added more information from independent reliable sources". Unfortunately, the article is still limited to just a plot summary and publication history and contains zero indication why the subject meets WP:GNG. The linked sources I checked don't seem to go beyond said plot summary and list of works he appeared in, and I am afraid that's too little to meet GNG (as well as WP:SIGCOV). Side note to people new to the topic area: a lot of "comic book encyclopedias" are illustrated plot summaries, not written by scholars but by fans, and are in-universe, and/or much closer to illustrated books for young readers/fans or graphic novels than encyclopedias. So the argument "notable because he is mentioned in another encyclopedia" is not going to be very helpful here, I am afraid. The Encyclopedia of Golden Age Superheroes is not an academic work but a fan Kickstarter project... and while I couldn't access the print version, I think it just reproduces the contents found on the author's website: [3]/[4], and I think this is representative of the coverage of this super niche character in general (no analysis anywhere, just plot summary and least of appearances, sorry if I sound like a broken record). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself. The relevant parts are from the end of page 132 to the beginning of 134, so it's only two pages at most. It's just some storylines. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich Thank you. As I suspected, there is ZERO critical, literary analysis of this character. Wikipedia is not Fandom, that's why we have GNG policy - we require more than just a rehashing of the plot, we need something showing this has been considered significant, notable, etc. Why so many people fail to understand this is beyond me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Notable superhero as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect No indication, in the form of sources or a reception section, that this character has had any significant impact outside of his own universe, as mandated by WP:IINFO#1 and WP:WAF. The source provided above doesn't give anything relevant, and, like the nominator, I failed to find anything that could qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the nominator has attempted to dismiss the cited sources but I disgaree with their reasoning. A published book doesn't have to be written by scholars to count towards establishing notability. It would be good to hear from Toughpigs who may be able to offer more insight into the sources they cited. NemesisAT (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NemesisAT Works by non-scholars are fine, but we need something that goes beyond a pure plot summary and/or publication history. IMHO at least a few sentences of analysis, sth like "Captain Flag exemplifies middle-of-century nationalism" or like is necessary for the topic to merit an encyclopedic article (which is what makes it different from an entry on a fan wiki, where in-universe information is sufficient). Or do you disagree with that? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way though as we don't have access to the sources cited, I'm happy to assume they do have the coverage required. NemesisAT (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But nobody made such assertion - further, the editors like Toughpigs who expanded the article know how important such content would be and I have trouble believing they would not include it if they found it. Which leads us to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do have access to the source cited (see above), and it has been shown that the WP:WAF-compliant coverage is nonexistent. Avilich (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The character is already covered here https://archiecomics.fandom.com/wiki/Captain_Flag. If anybody is genuinely interested in preserving the information, that is probably a better place to start than an encyclopedia which explicitly mandates that articles on fictional topics not be limited to in-universe details. Avilich (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; the argument that the information is available elsewhere so we don't need it could be applied to everything in Wikipedia. People are interested in who illustrated these comic-hero strips, what other series were being produced at the same time, that sort of background information, which is indeed in the article, and referenced. We do not need erudite professorial secondary sources to prove notability; we just need to prove that people independent of the source are publishing reasonably meaningful material. We don't expect reviews of Bollywood films to contain analysis about their exemplification of 2020's political thought, and nor should we require this of 1940's entertainment-fiction. Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For notability to be demonstrated, sources are needed to prove that this topic has received MOS:REALWORLD coverage. Publication history and plot info are trivial stuff that all fictional topics have, and so aren't enough on their own (WP:PLOT). As far as I can see, the current sourcing does not have any of this. Benton 1992 appears to have little more than passing mentions, and Mougin 2020 is basically only plot information and publication history. Markstein's Toonopedia is a deadlink but presumably just the same, and the rest seem to have only plot summaries as well. Avilich (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep meets WP:N with sources discussed in DRV. Arguments that WP:PLOT and MOS:REALWORLD apply as part of our inclusion guidelines are a stretch. We meet the notability guidelines and it's possible to write a short article that meets the MOS with what we have. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG, and, per Hobit, I note that the arguments put forth in the DRV, that independent RS'es which wouldn't align with our fiction MOS'es if they were Wikipedia content are inherently incapable of contributing to notability, entirely wrongheaded. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Okay, in my opinion articles about fictional topics should contain more than a summary of the plot. Notability means importance. What makes this topic important? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for stopping by and cutting straight to the chase. That's the very crucial point that many people here seem to be ignoring. Yes, we can source the plot with some "secondary" picture books. That doesn't mean the topic is notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sourcing to meet MOS criteria. WP:PLOT, perhaps ironically, does not actually mention plot. It did at one time, but that did not prevail. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the real world information to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes. The sources in the article prove existence, but nothing more. Tellingly, there's a citation from American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969, when the character was revived for one issue. I checked ACBC: 1940-1944 last night, which covered the time period where the character would have been most notable, and "Captain Flag" was not mentioned. Captain Flag was not mentioned in The Ten-Cent War, a book focused exclusively on WWII-era, WWII-themed comic books, nor in The Superhero Symbol, which has a chapter or two on the use of patriotic heroes. The average page views from 11/1/21 thru 12/31/21 was 7 per day, so it's a valid search term and I believe it's worth preserving the creators and debut issue somewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not be opposed to a redirect or merge either, and amended my vote accordingly. Avilich (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this another week post DRV so we don't end up back at DRV. Fictional characters are a complicated mess. Can we send them all to schools where they can earn Olympic medals at a place that may not be geographically recognized?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes per Argento Surfer. While the character is mentioned in some sources, none of those sources actually constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Several sources have been added to the article since the AFD started, but none of them appear to actually be significant coverage, and several of them are on a completely different character and don't even mention Captain Flag, so I'm not even sure why they were added. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources are poor, but others have a page+ of material. We don't delete (or merge) because some of the sourcing is poor. In this case, we've identified sources that do cover the topic in depth. The only real debate at this point is if sources that are mostly (but not entirely) about plot are useful toward the GNG. It's a fairly novel argument to claim that they aren't, but I'm really not seeing any debate about having sources that spend significant ink covering the topic. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. I agree with Dimadick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes, as per Argento Surfer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - of the sources, they all are either indiscriminate collections of information, explicitly describe Captain Flag as "obscure" and "secondary", don't mention them at all, or are unarchived and therefore inaccessible. If Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then why are we sourcing from indiscriminate collections of information? It just doesn't make much sense. casualdejekyll 20:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability on Wikipedia is a term of art that indicates if the WP:GNG or appropriate WP:SNG is met. Lots of detailed sources that call something "obscure" or "secondary" are better than a handful of sources that say "important" or "primary". Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My argument here is based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is an explicit exception to GNG, and I quote: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." (Emphasis mine.) casualdejekyll 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Still the same problem as I see it. What makes this "indiscriminate"? The fact that some sources have used the term "obscure"? See WP:NOTPAPER. This isn't a database or something else that WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists. I'm not sure how your !vote isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The key is we have sources. That you don't consider the issue of import isn't very relevant. Even if the sources consider it minor, that's not something our inclusion guidelines really care about. Hobit (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So, we're not allowed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but we're allowed to build an article based almost entirely off of sources that ARE Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE (the only exception as far as I'm aware being ref 4). That's what you're saying here, at least. Note that as far as I can tell, all sources are simply just "Summary-only descriptions of works" (quote from, who would have guessed, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE). If the only thing you can source is a summary-only description of the work, then how are you supposed to cite any statement that isn't a summary only description of the work? casualdejekyll 00:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They really aren't. They include publication dates, authors and other things. The article, as it stands, is short, but covers lots of non-plot things. So can an article be written with our sources that isn't struggling with being pure plot? Yes, we have one. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Lots of non-plot things? Please name them. The only non-plot coverage we have is publication history, which is simply verifying the existence of the topic in the real world. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes the two paragraphs we have in publication history and the two paragraphs that form the lead are all non-plot. That's more than enough for a reasonable article. People claiming that the sources we have can't support anything other than plot are shown to be wrong by the existent article. Hobit (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe what Piotrus is asking for when he says "non-plot things" would include reviews of the material, analysis of the character's impact on other heroes, the relationship between this material and the creator's other works, or something notable from the publication history that's unique (or close to it). Since the publication date and creators can be sourced from the comic book, sourcing them from third party sources doesn't add anything to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            @Argento Surfer Indeed. It's also common sense that any plot summary can be pointlessly padded with information about publication history in real world of the work it appeared in. That, however, doesn't make that work notable - it's just a WP:CATALOGUE-type of addition. Notability has to be shown through sources that treat the subject as important enough to discuss beyond a pure catalogue-like mention. Which is why the relevant policy is called WP:NOTABILITY not WP:EXISTENCE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Archie Comics. Maybe make a new section and title it "Miscellaneous Superheroes"? Fix it up a little, and rephrase the information in ways that are varied from the sources of information. I don't recommend removing information simply because it is obscure, but if it has any value. If the aforementioned "Captain Flag" article is not relevant to the comic publishers history, or doesn't contribute any worthwhile information, then I agree that you should delete it. However, obscure information has just as much place on this site as not obscure information because who is to say that it is any less useful than the most commonly known information out there? I advise that we stay wary and don't jump the gun when an article doesn't have popular information. GoofyDonut (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes as there is not enough to indicate notability of this fictional character separate from the larger cast of Archie Comics characters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Captain Flag is listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica along with others. [5] Just the name, nothing else about him. Newspapers.com shows results to sort through at [6] but apparently my account expired. I just went to the Wikipedia Library page [7] and clicked the button to request to "extend" it. Anyway, from the sources already found, I say notability is already proven. If anyone has a working account to a newspaper search site, you can surely find more. Dream Focus 17:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found one trivial mention, sources which you are not willing to look and are not even sure exist, and no rebuttal to the argument that the article fails the relevant NOT policy concerning fictional topics (which in turn invalidates notability altogether)? Avilich (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too am doubtful that a passing mention in Britannica and a search result (which may or may not be related to the character) could address the concerns discussed above. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment made by Hobit is a rebuttal to your argument. No need to just repeat what others have said. And I said the existing sources found and mentioned by others was enough to convince me, I just pointing to where even more things can be found should any have access. Some of the summaries that appear from search results for "Captain Flag" and "comic" are about the character. Dream Focus 22:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Piotr's counterpoint above. Which of the sources do you think provides the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:GNG? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sourcing found, nothing to merge. No objection to a redirect being created and happy to provide attribution history if the info is subsequently sourced. Star Mississippi 01:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 1938 Bolivarian Games – Men's team squads

Football at the 1938 Bolivarian Games – Men's team squads (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'm not convinced that this tournament was of a high enough profile that a list of squads is absolutely essential. This article has been unsourced for its entire history so is also a WP:V concern let alone WP:N. A full list of results is found here but the squads aren't listed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify.. There was strong near consensus to delete but I'm moving this page to Draft space for those who believe that better sources are imminent. Please do not move to main space until it has received AFC approval. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Kalnawat

Paras Kalnawat (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 one significant role and some small roles , failing WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though the notable role is only one that is Samar Shah in Anupamaa but still it'll be very soon to get his article deleted due to illogical fan activities by some sockpuppet users.Though ITV shows features dozens of actors. But he's one of the important character since starting of the show. And the main lead of 2017 series Meri Durga and main antagonist of 2019 web series Ishq Aaj Kal. Though his main notable role is Samar Shah right now. But see his career graph for once. Not asking as a fan. Generally. See the plot of Anupamaa first and his career graph also. Please.Pri2000 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete requires multiple lead roles. There are many roles but they aren't essentially lead. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it's not clear that this meets WP:NACTOR one major role, some minor roles, with no RS supporting. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject has wide media coverage in reliable sources like The Times of India, Zee news, prabhat khabar, Indian express etc. So it should be kept. Gari897 (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Wide media coverage" has been asserted; is that claim backed up by reliable sources? @Gari897: links to the sources you are referencing would help move this discussion along properly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these sources do seem relevant; relisting again in the hope of getting reactions from other participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've looked through the links found above and all are either typical churnalism (republished tweet/instagram posts) content or interviews. hemantha (brief) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think deleting an article even after having sufficient presence in Reliable Resources just on the basis of Interviews or Churnalism will be a much sooner step. As most of the actors have their sources on similar basisPri2000 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary sources like interviews may be used to support article content but they don't contribute towards notability. The subject has to meet NACTOR or GNG independently. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubation Request/Suggestion - Kindly incubate the article and move it to Wikipedia:Drafts instead of deletion until it meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notable shows. Fails WP: NACTOR.223.236.209.202 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just see his career graph for once within 2021 and Anupamaa is indeed his biggest notable show even after him being main lead in Meri Durga and main antagonist in Ishq Aaj Kal. And don't consider Anupamaa unnotable as Anupamaa itself is a highly populated show following all notability guidelines. And his role is in the show is among one of the most important roles. And see his presence in Reliable sources also. I agree with Manali Jain's suggestion also to draftify it.Pri2000 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pri2000 ,you are commenting so many times to influence the result. You don't need to mention same thing again and again.110.226.215.221 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pri2000, Please see WP:GNG and WP: NACTOR. He is clearly failing both guidelines.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pri2000 but you are repeating your statement again and again. You have voted once and commented twice.110.226.215.221 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP is evading their block. The closer should disregard their comments. Girth Summit (blether) 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon. Refer-WP:TOOSOON GeezGod (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - To me this topic appears possibly notable, but the article is in such poor English that it's difficult to tell. Deb (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one last time. It was suggested that the subject is "possibly notable".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Lists of astronauts. ✗plicit 13:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of space travelers

Lists of space travelers (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'm not sure how this page is necessary? Just links to other list articles. I guess it should be a redirect to Lists of astronauts instead. Tame (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts. Dream Focus 09:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, and I guess merge if needed, they are both disambigs. Why on Earth did this end up listed on 'list of companies-related deletions'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts. Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the redirect doesn't work, because the lists are deliberately not the same. List_of_astronauts_by_name starts with the definition "This is an alphabetical list of astronauts, people selected to train for a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft" (i.e. people who were in space professionally, doing something useful), and refers readers to the current list if they want to know about others who've gone into space, for example as commercial passengers/tourists. I think this is a helpful distinction. It would be possible to maintain the distinction by turning these lists into a combined table, with extra columns to indicate whether the person was a passenger or an astronaut, but that's a truly huge amount of work, and will make the whole thing bigger, so I think it's simpler to keep two lists. But I don't really feel strongly about the passengers, because only time will tell whether we actually care whether Branson went into space or not. Elemimele (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lists of astronauts and List of astronauts by name aren't the same article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Qwaiiplayer, Abhishek0831996 good point, but renders the redirect an even worse idea, because the data for which the reader is searching won't be available at the redirect target. If you click on something that promises a list of names, you shouldn't get dumped in a list of missions, nationalities, ethnicities and billionaires. Some space travellers will not feature in any of the lists at Lists of astronauts because, for example, as space-travellers rather than astronauts, they may not belong to any of the missions, nationalities or ethnicities that we've included. Frankly, the whole lot of those lists are a mess. Why do we have a List_of_Ibero-American_spacefarers but no list of European astronauts, and why does the Ibero-American list include Klaus_von_Storch, who hasn't made it off the ground, and is realistically unlikely to do so? By all means delete, but don't bother with a misleading redirect. Elemimele (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of astronauts - After a quick comparison, it seems like List of space travelers by company is the only list included here that is not already present on the Lists of astronauts page, so that should probably be added. But, outside of that, this is entirely redundant. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator---thanks for pointing out lists of astronauts; if I had known about this, I wouldn't have made the page. I had spent a while looking for a particular list of space travellers, and in order to spare other people the same effort, I made the list of lists; I think the reason I didn't realize lists of astronauts was what I needed is that list of cosmonauts, referring to members of the Soviet space program, showed up right before it in search, so I automatically assumed this was a list of non-Soviet astronauts (I should've checked, sorry). Anyways, redirect seems like by far the most reasonable choice. Oeoi (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. I'm striking my weak keep. I was fooled by the browser on the device I was using, which somehow skipped straight to the actual list of space travellers by name at List_of_space_travelers_by_name. Looking into it, I've seen it does this with several list-of-list type articles, possibly because of my clumsy fingers! My comments above therefore applied to completely the wrong article. But with thanks to the closer for reopening, as technically it's right that the AfD should run its course. Apologies to all for causing confusion. Elemimele (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Asians

AfDs for this article:
Overseas Asians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

The article is not useful in its scope. There are individual articles for all Asian national diasporas. Furthermore, there are no citations or links to other articles. The article essentially contains an infobox only which is not supported by citations.StormcrowMithrandir 09:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: One malformed sentence about a misnamed topic (what happens to Asians who migrate overland to Europe or Africa?). No meaningful content at all. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlackGen Capital

BlackGen Capital (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 enough independent, in-depth coverage. At first glance, it might look like it has a lot of coverage, but most of them are PR and primary sources, i.e., interviews with the CEO. For example this from Bloomberg and this from MSN are the same source containing nothing but an interview at some conference. Tame (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page has adequate independent sources listed upon the second review of sources and content within articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewClarinson2 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matter (app)

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

Non-notable app, not enough in-depth and significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. Tame (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minoan Group plc

Minoan Group plc (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)

Irrelevant minor company. Uhooep (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Iraq-related articles

Index of Iraq-related articles (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 type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably this AFD. The index in question is a small and does not give useful assistance to a reader on Iraqi topics. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Lebanon-related articles

AfDs for this article:
Index of Lebanon-related articles (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 type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably this AFD. The index in question is small and does noe give useful assistance to a reader about Lebanese topics. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007 and 2009. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Cantonese-related articles

Index of Cantonese-related articles (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 type of list can be considered depecrated, per deletion of the China index as well as this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The index in question is tiny and not maintained. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete like other same articles. NavjotSR (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a useful search term. I highly doubt any future editors will look through the history of an obscure redirect in order to expand an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. I have noted the number of, shall we say, very new accounts arguing to keep here. Given the issues with sock puppetry, arguments from those have been discounted. With what is left over from more experienced editors, the consensus is clearly to delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cerrito

AfDs for this article:
Mario Cerrito (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)

Deleted through AfD in 2014 and 2016, and the subject of a long-running sockpuppetry campaign to recreate. Current incarnation was created by what is almost certainly a UPE throwaway account, which has already had two other articles deleted as promotional (1 · 2). This looks very strongly like someone having gotten sick of not being able to evade SPI and paying someone else to do it for them, but sadly I can't prove that to a high enough degree of confidence to justify a G5 under WP:MEAT, and the text is sufficiently different to preclude G4, so here we are.

Cerrito has directed two films that we have articles on, Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi. However, notability is not inherited, and the bulk of this article is promotionally-toned content about those films and his other works. The only non-inherited SIGCOV in the article are two local-news puff pieces and some mentions from when he was on an episode of Ghost Nation. The only other coverage I find in a BEFORE search is some news coverage from a time he witnessed a suicide.

While he is closer to notable now than he was in 2016, I still don't think he meets the bar, and urge deletion. Note: If this article is deleted, the title should be re-salted, as should the most recent salt-hacks, Mario Cerrito III., Mario G. Cerrito III, and Mario Cerrito 3rd. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC) ed. 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I vote keep. Individual has a lot of references on Google search. Has done notable work and was featured in National televised TV show. Career seems to have spanned about 10 years. Upon researching other independent filmmakers or actors that have Wikipedia pages, Mr. Cerrito seems to have more body or work and references. Summerlee44 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
  • Keep When I saw that the article had been recreated, my knee-jerk reaction was to push for speedy deletion, a giveaway being that the title of the article was "Mario Ceritto III." with a period at the end of the name in an apparent attempt to pass under the radar. After further review of the article, it was clear that Cerrito does have coverage that is unambiguously about him and his work. The notability standard is met here. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt I find more hits for his appearance on Ghost Nation, which amounts to one time. Nothing in GNews beyond local sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have enough sources to meet GNG, with plenty of google hits. Has directed notable films, which is not a given but helps his notability. The sockpuppetry is a seperate issue. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with above. Enough sources to meet notability standards.2601:8D:8700:5E10:D5E0:983D:E9A4:B0E8 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
  • Note: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MikePlant1 regarding two of the above keep !votes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I live in the same area as the person and find it fascinating that is a movie maker in the south Jersey area (where I live.) Obviously I focus on individuals and things I appreciate or feel compelled to edit. I edited on his film back in 2018 because of course I knew about that as well. You are making a lot of accusations but are failing to see that the individual is notable with plenty of references and sources to back it up as stated by others. Instead of trying to put me down and make me feel like I am not wanted to edit on Wikipedia, support would be greatly appreciated.Summerlee44 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject's article has 48 inline cites and numerous credits listed on IMDb — more than sufficient evidence of his notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Spinner: First of all, you should acknowledge that you were canvassed here by Summerlee. Secondly, I'm trying to be deferential to process here by not removing all the low-quality citations that Summerlee and 2601 have added until after they're blocked as sockpuppets, but if you actually look at what those 48 citations are, many are to things as tangential as college athletic stats, or to user-generated content, with the only real RS coverage being local-news puff pieces. You are being suckered in by a serial sockmaster who's been at this for the better part of a decade and is just sticking every single Google hit for their own name into this article as references to boost the appearance of notability. And who, I note again, blatantly canvassed you to this discussion after admitting to have a COI with the subject (a narrative that, amusingly, differs from the one they've given here and at SPI). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For full transparency, noting that I've cut about 4kB worth of blatantly promotional, excessively detailed, unsourced, or poorly-sourced information. The entire article basically read like a CV. Much of what's left in the article is still seriously problematic, but this at least gives a somewhat better picture of what we're working with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Summerlee did indeed post on my user talk page informing me of this AfD and if that were the reason for my participation here, I would have mentioned it in my vote. However, as you may or may not know, I previously voted at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022 and, since I watchlist all my edits, was already aware of this AfD and would have at some point voted here even if Summerlee had not contacted me.
As an inclusionist, I argue against deletion as part of virtually every AfD in which I participate. Furthermore, I have edited Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for over 16 years and the majority of my edits are in fields of film and TV. Thus, you give me very little credit by writing, "You are being suckered in by a serial sockmaster...", since any filmmaker with the eight-year list of credits that Mario Cerrito has on IMDb would have earned a "keep" vote from me with no further arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Spinner: Per WP:INAPPNOTE, that message was obviously canvassing for two reasons: it was not neutral ("I did see you supported him as well", asking to reiterate support), and the audience chosen (you) was partisan instead of nonpartisan (evidenced by your inclusionist stance described above, highlighted by the fact that your last 42 !votes have been Keep, with the last recorded different vote being cast in December 2020; the canvasser's statement about your past support obviously counted on that). An experienced 16 year veteran editor such as yourself should know not to respond to inappropriate consensus-building attempts through WP:CANVASSING, so I ask that you please strike your vote. This is otherwise material for a AN complaint. Pilaz (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pilaz: Is it your position, that because of my "inclusionist stance", I should have recused myself from participating in this AfD as soon as I received the canvassing posting from Summerlee who must have felt that I was a supporter of Mario Cerrito?
In fact, I had never heard of Mario Cerrito before participating at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022 where my "support" vote was simply in favor of the uncontroversial technical request of punctuation deletion and also in favor of suggestion by another participant that the generational suffix "III" be deleted.
Also, your posting appears to imply either a) that as an inclusionsist I am not neutral and therefore should desist from participation in all deletion discussions, b) I should limit my recusal to participation in deletion discussions dealing with my most frequent editing topic — the entertainment industry, or c) I should have at least halted any involvement with this AfD as soon as I was canvassed by Summerlee.
If your position is (c), it would thus lead to the conclusion that had I voted here before receiving Summerlee's posting, my "keep" vote would have been in the clear, although still not neutral due to my inclusionism, but since I voted "keep" after receiving Summerlee's posting, I should strike my vote since it is tainted by Summerlee's canvassing.
I reject any suggestion of a lack of neutrality on my part or that Summerlee's posting had any effect on my vote. Also, to counter any presumption that, upon receiving Summerlee's posting, I rushed to cast my "keep" vote, it should be noted that Summerlee's posting on my talk page is dated 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC), while my one-sentence "keep" vote is dated 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC). The vote stands.
Finally, although I rarely, if ever, make personal comments about editors with whom I interact, I do not see your vote in this discussion and am puzzled by your decision to enter this AfD not to cast your own vote, but to single out my brief vote for attention and even to go so far as to mention the possibility of "a AN complaint". Is there an ax to grind here? —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Spinner: My position is the one I made above. You were canvassed and should not have participated in this AfD, are a partisan audience as described by WP:INAPPNOTE, were not notified neutrally, and were the only user canvassed out of everyone else who participated in the RM you described - any minimal due diligence on your part should have been to check whether others had been equally informed and, failing that, to inform them to level the playing field. If you don't see the problem with being canvassed by a blocked sock, I can't help with that beyond what I wrote here and above. Pilaz (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pilaz: Once again, I reject the suggestion that my "keep" vote was in any way influenced by Summerlee's posting on my talk page or that I became aware of this AfD as a result of that posting. Since I did no previous editing on anything related to Mario Cerrito and had no interaction with Summerlee prior to my vote at Talk:Mario Cerrito#Requested move 24 January 2022, there was no reason for me to suspect any need for due diligence or for contacting other participants.
I knew nothing about any "blocked sock" and merely arrived at both venues (RM as well as AfD) to cast a brief vote as I have done at numerous other occasions. Any implication that my receipt of Summerlee's posting disqualifies me from participation in this AfD has no basis in policy. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so you've said, over and over again. Whatever else may be the case, you are certainly now aware that you were canvassed here at the request of a sock puppet account. It would be optimal for you to withdraw of modify your !vote to take this into account but it is not necessary. The inappropriate notification of a !voter, no matter how honest that !voter believes their input to be, is something that the closer here is able take into account per WP:NHC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it over and over again in response to the same issue being raised over and over again — Summerlee's posting on my talk page invited me to vote on the Mario Cerrito AfD which was already known to me due to the fact that the Mario Cerrito article was on my watchlist.
I made a decision to vote "keep" as soon as I learned about the AfD and planned to cast my vote at some point in the near future when I got around to it. Summerlee's posting appeared less than an hour after the AfD opened, but I didn't get around to vote on it until three days later.
Thus, you appear to be saying that had I voted "keep" within the few minutes between the opening of the AfD and the appearance of Summerlee's posting on my talk page, then my vote would have been cast in good faith, but because I voted after receiving Summerlee's posting, even if it was three days after, my vote should be perceived by the closer as tainted. Such a premise and conclusion are both flawed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are a few articles about him in local-but-mainstream publications. I removed the refs to IMDB and the PR site. I suspect, also, that the links to horrornews.net, horrorfuel.com, and dvdlocker.com are not acceptable as reliable sources. I also note that neither of the "film festivals" has enough presence to warrant the red wiki-links, so I think those should be removed. If these non-reliable sources are removed then I think with the local New Jersey papers there is just enough to keep this article. Lamona (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant coverage in multiple sources, and seems to make reasonable claims of notability, think its an easy keep. Saiskysat (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting because of the sock issue. Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: I have formatted your relist so that it presents correctly to xfd closer. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist as per request to reopen on closer's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt: The vast majority of sources in the article or in searches are not useful. Those sources that are independent and reliable are generally not significant and vice-versa. The exceptions are the extremely local coverage from hometown papers. For a supposed nationally-distributed filmmaker, local coverage is simply not good enough evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The repeated sock-puppetry in this article and in this discussion justify create protection. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote by, and discussion with, blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep and Comment I am a little upset about this being up for deletion again after it just passed for "keep." As a working artist and businessman your name means a lot. I am currently casting for a new movie and was just informed this morning by an actors agent after he "googled me" that my wikipedia is facing deletion. He asked me why. As embarrassing as it was when he asked me, I didn't know how to respond. What is irritating me the worst is after researching the history on the article it was JUST nominated for deletion and passed as "keep." As much as I don't know about wikipedia I started doing some research/reading and found under (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. After checking it has literally been a matter of 5 days and a page about me has the deletion tag again and it is not right. I can read above that Tamzin seems to have the problem and upon looking at the just passed deletion discussion she forgot to mention it looks to be 5 Keep votes including Alanshohn, Eddy, Roman Spinner, Lamona and Saisykat. I see that a few were crossed out for whatever reasons but I am going off of what I am reading. You have to understand that as a working artist and individual something like a deletion tag on the first website that pops up when people "google you" is very demeaning. I am in the process of casting a film and people do research of who they are working with. To point out something else under (Wikipedia : Renominating for deletion) it also states "If you wish to renominate the page, hoping to achieve a different outcome, then slow down. You and the other participants may be overly involved with a particular perspective. Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them." I feel this has been handled unfairly and wished to express my concerns here on the discussion page. MarioCerrito (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — MarioCerrito (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Summerlee44 (talk · contribs). [reply]
@MarioCerrito:, there is a fundamental inaccuracy in your question. The article did not recently "pass as Keep". Geschichte closed this discussion with a status of "Keep" on Feb 10 but then reopened this same discussion after Tamzin pointed out that the discussion was impacted by invalid comments. Since you posted an identical message on Geschichte's user talk page, I'm sure you read the message immediately above yours explaining this. This may sound like nitpicking but it substantively means that your entire point about being tagged for deletion twice in a short time has no basis. Whatever effect you think this has on your professional status is something we cannot control. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a place where working artists and professionals can promote themselves. LinkedIn and Alignable and other places exist for that and do that better than we can. It exists to summarize what has been written about any topic that can demonstrate signifcant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage that exists is not something that we control. On a more personal note, I have to state that I am also a working artist and professional and I have no article here nor would I ever want one. The mistake a lot of those in our situation make is in thinking that Wikipedia hosts pages on people. It does not. It writes articles on subjects. The difference is that the first presents a person as they wish to be seen and the second summarizes how others have written or talked about them. An article about oneself is not always a good thing. I hope that helps explain some things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:, Hi! Awesome to hear your a fellow artist. So to address this some more, I obviously am not up to speed like you guys on the Wikipedia lingo and all but I simply meant that the article was kept. After reading I see that if someone has closed a deletion discussion it says at the bottom "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." That case was not followed here. There was no deletion review, just a simple reopen after it was just closed 5 days ago. And getting back to this (Wikipedia: Renominating for Deletion) it states : If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. How is this OK? Simply because the user Tamzin was not satisfied with the result? It doesn't seem right. And yes I totally understand what you're saying about personal and Wikipedia world and obviously I am not part of the Wikipedia world so I am learning that but in the meantime I am also defending the situation I do not think was handled properly. Thanks and I am not being malicious at all just simply stating the facts. Best, Mario.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioCerrito (talk • contribs) 14:24, February 15, 2022 (UTC)
@MarioCerrito:, Except you have your facts somewhat incorrect. There was no renomination so the standards about that don't apply. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE states that editors can use formal processes such as WP:DRV but you can also speak to the closer if you think there was information the closer should have taken into account but were not aware of. That is exactly what happened here and Geschichte obviously agreed that there was a concern that invalidated their close. The "No further comments" message then becomes irrelevant because by reverting their own close, Geschichte opened the floor to further comments. And it was reopened not because of one editor's dissatisfaction but because this discussion was impacted negatively by users disrupting the discussion. See WP:SOCK for more information but the relevant passage is: ...it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, ... By making multiple !votes under different identities, there has been a distortion of the consensus and the previous close is not reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:, What you sent me is contesting a deleted page not a kept page. I don't want to argue I am curious as to how many pages are put into "kept status" and then immediately put back into deletion discussion a few days later. Especially since it clearly states that they should not be opened back up into deletion discussion until months later. There is also a specific process under deletion review. MarioCerrito (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioCerrito: The previous status of "keep" was reached by a single editor, Geschichte, who at that time believed the consensus justified closing in that manner. A closing editor reserves the right to reverse their own decision, as Geschichte did and therefore invite further discussion. A relist in this instance is essentially extending the length of time afforded to consider the validity of the article and whether or not it should exist. This is not a new discussion and you need to disregard what is now an erroneous "keep". I ensured the relist was handled correctly, but have no personal opinion on the matter. Eggishorn explained this all to you very eloquently above. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: Understood. I was just stating my concerns on the matter.MarioCerrito (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve

I agree this article reads like a resume, but that can be relatively easily changed. @MarioCerrito: If you want this article kept, I would suggest you make it read more like an encyclopedia. The article does need to read less as a promotion and strictly talk about the content you've produced. Lincoln1809 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioCerrito: I don't agree with Lincoln1809. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the Wikipedia article about yourself. If you have any specific suggestions, you can post them on the article's talk page - Talk:Mario Cerrito - with the {{edit request}} template. Or you could use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:I have never edited this article before. MarioCerrito (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: and @Lincoln1809: for context, MarioCerrito was blocked for sockpupeting, demonstrating willingness to lie. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft or delete The notability of the subject is not well established at all. The writing is very poor and looks promotional, not encylopedic. If "delete" is resisted then at least move to draft. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no sources which are independent, reliable, and significant at the same time, so there are no sources which would count towards notability. If anyone reading this believes there are sources which demonstrate notability, then please pick out these good sources and list them on this page for evaluation. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem to pass WP:GNG to me. The notable films he directed, makes the page worth keeping Cyberwayfolk (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific notable movies do you keep in mind? I assume you mean Deadly Gamble, Ghost Nation (one episode), and Human Hibachi. Appearance in Ghost Nation is likely not notable because WP:NARTIST explicitly excludes "a single episode of a television series" from criteria of notability. I quickly looked over Deadly Gamble and Human Hibachi and am not certain they are notable. If you like, I can look in more detail to confirm at least one is notable or AfD them. Also, edit histories of both movies contain significant contributions made by banned accounts, so both articles at some point were edited in bad faith. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable local filmmaker, there are so many other similar independent, low budget film makers whose articles we have deleted. I've looked at all three AFD discussions and they have all been plagued with sockpuppet activity, so much that I almost think this page should be salted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I just discovered that another title for this filmmaker, Mario Cerrito III, has already been salted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As is Mario Joseph Cerrito and Mario Joseph Cerrito 3rd. Three titles for this fellow are already salted, that is a bad sign. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read through everything and some people are talking about no independent, reliable and significant sources. But I have seen plenty just in the reference section alone. If you look at them, they are news articles that focused solely on individual and his work. NJ.com is not a "local" publication that is NJ state level and he has been covered multiple times by multiple writers. The Sockpuppet stuff doesn't define whether someone is notable or not as Editorofthewiki mentioned above. There is enough here for inclusion.

Just some Examples of strong sources (I'm fairly certain someone that is non notable would not get written about 5 different times by NJ.com)

1. A publication in Philadelphia https://southphillyreview.com/2021/09/09/south-philly-director-cooks-up-another-horror-film/ 2. NJ.com A. articles http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_filmmaker_to_release_thriller_deadly_gamble.html B.http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/deadly_gamble_nj_filmmaker_feature_film_now_available_on_demand.html C. https://www.nj.com/south/2013/06/james_gandolfini_legacy_loss_f.html D. https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2018/08/cerrito_film.html E. https://www.nj.com/south/2016/01/7_year_old_with_chronic_illness_to_appear_in_nj_fi.html 3. Courier-Post https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2019/10/26/ghost-nation-travel-channel-reveals-reasons-mario-cerrito-home-haunted/2461303001/ WexfordUK (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from New Jersey. NJ.com needs content like any media site and writes feature articles about local "celebrities" like any geographically-oriented paper/website does. It is state level in that it covers state issues (and local ones as well) but, honestly, NJ is a small state. It's not like NJ.com is the NYTimes, it's a website that focuses on NJ news, people and events. It has articles about politics in Trenton but also subjects like high school football and local lottery winners.
As for sockpuppets, how does an account that has been active for 2 days find its way to this AFD? You haven't been here long enough to have a User talk page yet. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Small state but most densely populated. Again, if he was non notable why would he get written about so often. I didn’t realize everyone on Wikipedia had to be in NYTimes WexfordUK (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't need to be in the NYTimes to be considered notable. But notability is also not determined by the number of articles the local paper/website runs on you, local media loves celebrities who live in the town or state, no matter how big or small they are. And, yes, NJ.com covers the state but I still consider that local, not national, in coverage. And yes, it is the most densely populated U.S. state but I lived where there were rabbits living in the back yard and skunks, ground hogs, deer and wild turkeys (the animal variety) and even bears passing through. Farmland & urban sprawl, is a state of dramatic contrasts, that is for sure. End of NJ chatter. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for this article, I can't get past the fact that we have so many pages on this fellow salted already, that speaks volumes to me. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: It isn’t just NJ.com I see, it’s Philadelphia based papers, other articles from other areas and a good amount of Horror sites from all over. I’m not saying he is Wes Craven but there’s are different levels of notability. Also to add, a whole episode (Episode 3 - The Novelist’s Nightmare) of Travel Channel’s Ghost Nation (TV Series) was filmed at his home on him and his family, covered by multiple sources. And to me it seems the sock issue was an article trying to get created for him over time and having to make new adjustments to name Bc of the others being salted. It seems they were given no chance because of recreation. As many have said, he seems to be notable per sources listed and body of work. The sock issues doesn’t determine notability. WexfordUK (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to have reasonably good number of reliable sources. I think GNG meet here. The work done by him in the industry mentioned in this article seems notable. Other issues may be resolved but the article may be kept. Billshine (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get a sock-free week of source discussion by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Also, do not give into the socks. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: Why should the subject suffer from the misuse of the platform by others. As stated above, sock puppets do not have bearing on whether someone is notable or not. The sources that are listed in the reference section show he is notable and has been over a span of ten years. WexfordUK (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just curious is this the longest AfD in wiki history? WexfordUK (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nah it has some company for sure. Star Mississippi 01:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: ha, amazing. I think this article needs a sub section of the sock puppets eventually. Sourced of course. WexfordUK (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ignoring quotes, there is enough content between the sources to establish notability in my opinion. The article certainly shouldn't be deleted purely due to sock accounts or due to WP:OTHERSTUFF. NemesisAT (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage to support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster School, Dubai

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

The article has been here since 2009 and has a tag dated to 2014, where the criteria for verification and better sources has still not been met. I would say 80% of the article's citations are primary sources to the schools' own website and blog? which violates WP:RSPRIMARY but the rest of the sources, mainly the ones including the the British govt's website and UNESCO are inflated. It bears little to the school itself as it's just explaining the schools' curriculum, nothing regarding the school itself. Prior to this AfD I had removed an entire unreferenced section and have seen small areas where NPOV language has not been met. The article had an instnace of growth mainly due to paid editors(staff) from the school itself editing the article to make the school look good, basically writing the article as an advert. The only other reference mentioned is from Kent Online a seemingly reliable source regarding the principal of the school, which to me does not seem to be of much significance to the article itself. Let me know your thoughts. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than 5,000 students. Meets WP:GNG. Of course it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, @Necrothesp: thank you for your opinion, can you elaborate more on how having 5,000 enrolled students validates GNG if no sources back up the claim. Also can you help me understand how that number itself can be relied upon, as it's from the school's website itself and has not been authenticated by a secondary source. In my opinion, I feel this article does not even satisfy the first line of the WP:GNG sub-section due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thank you. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 17:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were two separate statements. First, its sourcing meets GNG. And second, I fail to see how such a large school is not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I know how its sourcing meets GNG if almost all of it is from their own website and has not had any additional sources of information on the page since 2009, authenticating it? The remaining sources are just general information regarding the British curriculum, which any and all schools following British patterned education can add. I would understand if the curriculum information was added after notability had been established, through the criteria. But I don't think that information has to do with notability for the school. Additional note, I'll condense the four sources from the same website regarding the curriculum as it seems inflated. The notable scenario that got some traction a while back was when the school was about to close, it did not happen and was just one incident which I don't think is enough to warrant notability. Further, I fail to see how you consider GNG to be met when all five criteria require some essence of reliable sources and this article has just one I feel and that's not even about the school, it's regarding the principal moving to Dubai, to take charge of the school as its principal. Yes, it's a large school as many schools offering British patterned education in Dubai are, but I feel there's nothing regarding the school to signify current notability. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 14:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mainly listings and related sources under its few unique hits. No independent, reliable sources. The Banner talk 13:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had looked into this when it was posted and had decided to vote delete at that point due to the lack of reliable, in-depth, independent coverage, but the nominator wrote a message on my talk page asking for my opinion about it before I could post the "vote." So if the closer wants to ignore this "vote" since it was sort of canvassed I'm fine with that. Although, like I said, I was planning on voting delete on it before the nominator messaged me and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to participate in something or have my opinion disqualified because of another user's actions that I have no control over. I don't think it was the intent of the nominator to canvass people either. Again though, the closer is free to ignore this, but I'm of the opinion that the school isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Adamant, I don't think your vote would be a problem at all, as I asked for an opinion and didn't ask you to maliciously vote to delete, on the discussion page. Either way, even if you did vote to keep, I would've still respected your answer as it is your opinion and it was one that you had prior to me messaging you on the talk page. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 05:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. I have edited numerous existing WP articles about schools - often significant RS coverage about their history, notable former pupils and (occasionally) notable teachers help to establish notability. This, though, has nothing to justify its retention. Paul W (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (technical summit)

AfDs for this article:
Amalthea (technical summit) (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)

Advertising for a rather recent started series of meetings (started in 2010) by a very recently started university (started 2008). Many sources are not about the summit or are just passing mentions. So besides the advertising, I doubt about notability. Re-created article after normal procedure. The Banner talk 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sourcing comes entirely from the event organizers, no independent coverage at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't clear to me that the sourcing all comes from the event organizers. The references are PDFs that seem to have been downloaded to the IIT Gandhinagar system - perhaps through the library? Some of the articles, like this one state that they are from The Times of India Ahmedabad. That said, I have no idea whether local editions of the Times of India are considered RS. It's also a shame not have to have the original citation in the article (with effort, that perhaps could be done). I do think it would be a good idea to remove unreferenced info, reducing the article to only the facts that can be sourced. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the article you linked to provide any useful coverage. For one, it quotes the whole paragraphs from a certain lecture, so it would hardly be considered independent. Secondly, I don't see any coverage of the event in general, just one particular lecture. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I usually vote Delete on techfests but this one was actually covered by quite a number of reliable sources, including several articles in TOI and DNA. Don't get me wrong, it needs a lot of copy-editing, it is promotional and full of trivialities, most of the facts aren't sourced and the ones that are deserve better citation etc. However, notability-wise I think it has decent coverage to remain a short article and I don't think Blow it up and start over is the right solution in this case. --Muhandes (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please specify which sources you consider reliable independent and in-depth? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This and this are for sure reliable secondary sources. Together with the rest I think they provide enough coverage to establish notability for a short article. --Muhandes (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after looking over the references that have been provided I'm of the opinion that there is only extremely trivial, indirect coverage of this tech summit. Like the one from The Times Of India is literally one paragraph in an article about something else that doesn't even discuss the summit because it's about "The Speech Jammer", whatever that is. Whereas, the "DNA article" appears to be a self published promotional puff piece. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 01:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies Among Us

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no suitable reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Lombardi

Milo Lombardi (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)

Unable to find any decent sources. No news articles, no album reviews, no profiles in RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has been releasing music under the "NiftySax" (or Nifty Sax) stage name.[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.171.214.179 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://debbieburkeauthor.com/2022/02/10/niftysax-might-just-be-the-jazz-pioneer-were-looking-for-with-spheres/
  2. ^ https://www.clashmusic.com/news/niftysax-aims-for-the-stars-with-proxima-centauri
  3. ^ https://www.frontview-magazine.be/en/news/ambient-jazz-artist-niftysax-unveils-shaula-ffo-stan-getz-john-coltrane-and-portico-quartet

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A profile at the reliable All About Jazz helps a bit, but Lombardi seems to have made a career as a sideman with little distinct coverage of his own. As suggested by a commenter above, he has issued some work under the name Nifty Sax, but those are self-released and note how the article already says that he is reliant on crowdfunding. He simply has not received the coverage needed for notability here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 02:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aravan Festival in Coimbatore

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

Non-notable festival related article I2karankiran (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 06:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aligarh Public School

Aligarh Public 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)

The article only contains some basic info, lacks citations and reliable sources, only contains official website of school. Fails WP:GNGPri2000 (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Does not meet any notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Choudhury

Salah Choudhury (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)

Controversially listed. No such Primary sources in notability. Morever, there is probable UPE/COI is seen in in the wiki entry. Most of the resource just have a mention and the citatited coverage are from same source. - NeverTry4Me - TT page 08:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is evidence of significant coverage. There does not seem to be any valid reason to delete the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per others and my initial thoughts. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Anyone is free to move the article to the title suggested below. However, editors are encouraged to improve the article with the sources indicated below to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 02:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote J

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

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

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

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

  • I would agree with the Armysheep75 case. Louisville Coyote Calhoun was born in San Marcos, Texas [21], but his real name is simply not given. He worked in Wichita, Knoxville, and Sallisaw, Oklahoma. [22] There seems to be enough sourcing for an article on the Louisville Calhoun. A search of Radio & Records turns up mentions of a Coyote J. Calhoun that appears to be the subject of the AfD, but the lack of a searchable local paper really hinders me nailing down anything other than the fact that Coyote Calhoun and "Coyote J. Calhoun" or Coyote J are separate people. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Vadhera

Geeta Vadhera (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 can't find reliable sources on a Google search. When I tried to check some of the links that are peppered at the bottom of the article I get dead links and threat warnings. At the very least the link farm at the bottom should be removed immediately. Is it vandalism by an IP? Check the links at your own risk. I think the whole article should be deleted. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References have been updated to reflect websites that have closed All links are active . I have checked each one and added new working links. Geeta Vadhera has had a long stellar career as an artist and has had multiple exhibitions much before the internet was invented. She is an awardee of the Bharat Nirman Award as well and reference to the same has been provided. Please attempt Google Search again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.139.128.252 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - thanks to 150.242.172.148 and KH-1 for suggesting links, I've added them to the article and she passes GNG now. Mujinga (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in 2010, @Modernist: added a section about modern Indian painting to History of painting with this edit, and added "Geeta Vadhera has had acclaim in translating complex, Indian spiritual themes onto canvas like Sufi thought, the Upanishads and the Bhagwad Geeta." No sources were provided, but perhaps we can ask where that came from? I can't find it. Vexations (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* See also [23] from The Straits Times, Singapore - Some of the exhibitions are pre internet era so this is article is on microfilm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.172.148 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, where are the wikinotable galleries/museums that hold her work or significant exhibitions that she has been involved with? at the moment it is a delete from me as not meeting WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any !voters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Four articles from The Straits Times covering her work in the 1980s: [24] [25] [26] [27]. Possibly enough coverage to meet WP:GNG?-KH-1 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Straits Times is not reliable and the articles are puff pieces. One of the "reviews" was for an art exhibit at a hotel. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not puff pieces and The Straits Times is reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage". Cheers KH-1 for the sources! Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Stableford

Howard Stableford (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)

Contested PROD. Non-notable. Poor sources that do not demonstrate significant coverage about him JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Nostalgia is not enough to prove notability. Per WP:GNG he needs significant coverage in reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A week in the life of ... Howard Stableford: Howard Stableford was talking to Alice Wyllie.The Scotsman; Edinburgh (UK) [Edinburgh (UK)]. 16 Sep 2006
    Typical Biker Name: Howard Stableford Rides: Harley-Davidson Road King Classic Interview by Olly Duke.The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 16 Dec 2000
    a Dinner Date with Howard Stableford: Sunday Mercury; Birmingham (UK) [Birmingham (UK)]. 07 Feb 1999:
    My Hols;Travel;Interview;Howard Stableford, Hodson, Mark.Sunday Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 14 Apr 1996
    Howard Stableford 60 SECONDS EXTRA!: Howard Stableford presented Tomorrow's World for more than 12 years before giving it up to go and live in Colorado https://web.archive.org/web/20121005235636/http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/interviews/38-howard-stableford
    First four are available on ProQuest Piecesofuk (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piecesofuk: The Metro article is already in use, and someone has added a Stage article that may be good, but it's subscription-required and I can't see it. (I let my British Newspapers Archive sub lapse because it had been a hassle to get it, and the search was such shite I never found a single usable thing.) Those you cite above all appear to be interviews (and I can't see the 4 on Proquest, though there may be another way to get to some of them.) To establish notability, we need the Stage piece to be an article, not a brief blurb, and at least one additional extended piece about him, preferably not also from when he was first announced for Tomorrow's World. Since you have database access (and likely UK library access to newspaper archives online, unlike me), can you find us any? I also have doubts about the reliability of the BFI page for citing his birthdate; what's their sourcing policy, are we sure they haven't pulled that date from earlier versions of Wikipedia's own article or something equally unreliable? Do any of the interview articles I haven't seen mention how old he was at the time? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the Stage article, it states that he was 25 (in 1985). It mentions he presented Newsround and Beat The Teacher, and his early radio career. ProQuest is available via the Wikipedia Library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/, the four mentioned above are the first four results of 211 when I search for "Howard Stableford". The Telegraph interview is available at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/4747872/Typical-biker-Howard-Stableford.html The Guardian reported his return in the live one-off https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/nov/03/bbc-to-reboot-tomorrows-world-for-one-off-live-special Daily Mirror states that he was one of Tomorrow's World's longest running presenters https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tomorrows-world-returns-what-future-10350906 The Independent report that when Stabledord and Judith Hann were presenters that the show peaked with 10 million plus viewers https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tomorrow-s-world-confined-to-history-as-science-takes-a-battering-in-the-ratings-133503.html Piecesofuk (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the Stage article is more than a short paragraph, as I said, it appears to be a good source. But we require multiple reliable sources to have given him extended coverage, and interviews like the Telegraph are iffy for that, so so far it's the only one I see. I added the Mirror, and that can now be removed, since Stage refs the other shows that I couldn't find a reference for, and it's an unreliable source that we shouldn't be using in a BLP. As I say, I'm also uncertain about the reliability of BFI for his date of birth; I think we should be saying only "born in 1959 or 1960", with the Stage ref based on that statement that he was 25 in 1985. But the Mirror article is actually on the occasion of that one-off reunion broadcast of Tomorrow's World, and I really don't think that's worth mentioning as such in connection with his career, which is why I didn't use the Guardian, which says nothing about his other work. It and the Independent don't count toward notability at all, they only mention him briefly in connection with having done Tomorrow's World. To keep the article, we need at least one more article about him (that isn't just an interview about his love of biking; the Telegraph article adds Changing Places and that he married an American, but is otherwise just celebrity fluff, I'm afraid). Is there one (or more) lurking behind a paywall? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why you're questioning the reliability of the British Film Institute reference. Is there any evidence that they're unreliable or pull their information from Wikipedia? They have his place of birth as Poynton, Cheshire which as far as I can tell was not in Wikipedia.
He was also President of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors from 1998 to 2007 https://web.archive.org/web/20130627092746/http://www.theipi.org.uk/History.aspx predecessors include Bob Symes, Rhys Lloyd, Baron Lloyd of Kilgerran, John Maitland (Conservative politician), Archibald Low and George Askwith, 1st Baron Askwith.
There's no evidence that the Daily Mirror is an unreliable source (no consensus according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and it provides evidence that Stableford was one of Tomorrow World's longest serving presenters. Piecesofuk (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an additional reference for his date and place of birth, it can be viewed at https://archive.org/details/whoswhoontelevis0000hayw/page/234/mode/1up It was published in 1996 so predates Wikipedia Piecesofuk (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 01:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Piecesofuk. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dokhyon

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No discussion in 3 relists. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)

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

Lacks notability. I can find more about the "Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church" which formed in Canada in the 1970s[28] or about individual churches with this name, than about this small splinter group. Most sources are primary or not reliable (conservapedia!). I presume this is the same denomination as the one here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, but a new discussion after all this time won't hurt. Fram (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Fran!Indeed, the denomination is small in number of churches. However, there are several independent sources that cite much of the information in the article, so it is not based solely on primary sources. Ex:[29], [30] and [31]. The fact that the denomination has only 4 churches does not disqualify it, since several other denominations with practically the same number of churches (or less) have articles on Wikipedia. Ex: Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States, Reformed Congregations in North America, Covenanting Association of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches, Federation of Reformed Churches, American Presbyterian Church (founded 1979). The denomination is mentioned, with links, in several wikipedia articles, such as the List of Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in North America and Presbyterianism in the United States, in order to search for information about it. It has a history, a doctrine, and even relationships with other denominations. Also, the number of Presbyterian denominations in the US is limited. This is practically the only denomination in the country for which there is still no article on Wikipedia. In addition to everything that has already been mentioned, the same article exists on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, with the same sources and there it was not deleted. Therefore, I suggest keeping the article.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are very short mentions though, just indicating that a church with 50 members in Paramaribo is part of the Covenant. That's not really sufficient to speak of "significant" coverage about the denomination. Fram (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other sources that mention information about the denomination's doctrine: [32] and [33]. The latter also mentions the church number and the history of the denomination, where it came from (PCA). Therefore, independent sources explain: history, doctrine and number of churches. Little information depends on primary sources.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That second source is one line in a spreadsheet of denominations, from a source where I can't judge its reluiability at all. Doesn't add notability. But at least it's better than the first source, where all you have is a mention in footnote 39, "see also" followed by a list of denominations where this one is included. That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel... Fram (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, the first source mentioned above talks about groups within US Presbyterianism. She explains that denominations like PCA, OPC are conservative and mentions CRPC in footnotes as a denomination similar to them. The second source is actually a table and is for comparing Reformed denominations in North America. However, I found one more source that covers a lot of information about the denomination: [34]. This paper covers the 2004 CRPC General Assembly. It mentions its attempt to merge with other denominations such as RPC-HP, ARPC and CARPC on page 15. In addition, it mentions the departure of PCA pastors to CRPC on previous pages. That is, it is not just a few independent sources, but several, that mention the denomination. Each covers a bit of information about the denomination.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Daniel Silva Mendanha created this page today, using a different name to the previously deleted page, after I had proposed the deletion of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States, which he states in his new CRPC article to have originated as a split from Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination). Deletion of WPCUS was previously proposed in 2006, but in the meantime the denomination and its website have disappeared, and WPCUS appears reduced to Brian Schwertley, one of the ministers of the previously existing denomination, preaching privately (no advertised public church service location, but sermons online). User:Daniel Silva Mendanha edited the page to show it as past and to remove its website links, and then removed my proposal for deletion. --PeterR2 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good night Peter! Yes, I edited Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States, because I like to keep the information. I updated her status as extinct, as it was already in the article in Portuguese. I removed the deletion request because the warning itself said that if the page was enhanced with sources, it could be done. If I've done something wrong, I can undo it. Regards,--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Educomp Solutions

Educomp Solutions (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)

Similar challenges as other related articles, which have been deleted or are at AfD. Sourcing is limited to run of the mill listings, acquisitions and nothing to meet WP:ORG. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 21:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: First of all, an article is supposed to be judged by its own content and its notability cannot be disputed if "so-called" similar articles created by the same editor have got notability issues. I understand that this article has some presentation issues and needs to worked upon in terms of rewriting and rearranging all the stuffs in an encyclopedic manner, but questioning it's notability just because other related articles have got "so-called" similar issues is utterly nonsense. I would like the nominator and others to go through this Money Control article, which clearly states that this company was the first education entrepreneurship of India, and according this Economic Times article, this company was at a point of time "India's largest technology-driven education company". Derivator2017 (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are references on the page and references on schools that use their products. I just added a link to the page on Yara International School and there are a couple of references to their use on that page.Gusfriend (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is a fundamental divide here between those editors who believe GNG is met and those who believe it isn't so I'm closing this as no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Korah (band)

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

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

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

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

  • Keep Cross Rhythms and ABC are both RS and both SIGCOV, GNG is met, and after reviewing the coverage, I agree with St. Anselm, above. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG met, see: Cross Rhythms (2x, now), ABC and Sight Magazine articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buck-security

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

Non-notable software PepperBeast (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Breuil-sous-Argenton

Le Breuil-sous-Argenton (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 commune no longer exists and does not seems to itself be notable. There were a number of news articles from Ouest France that seem to mention the towns name but it doesn't seem to bring notability to the town itself. TartarTorte 02:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Unanimous keep decision. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 09:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Eilan

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

As far as I can tell, the closest thing to notability is that she was the president of European Society of Philosophy and Psychology, which I doubt is a significant enough society to meet WP:NACADEMIC #7. Xurizuri (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrova

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

This article has no inline citations and I can't find any to add. I am not finding any online sources. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. seems more like WP:PROMO. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Have added a couple of sources, many more are available, has had icons on display in major cathedrals etc, clearly notable as an exponent of this specialised field. PamD 09:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found the Fulcrum Anglican not such a great source as it claims it was "republished, with permission, from The Times, 28 March 2009". The original article is Twiston Davies, Bess. "A brilliant window into the divine and the eternal". p. 96. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I rearranged the citations provided by PamD, including the questionable Twiston-Davies article. I removed some text that I couldn't reference. Pinging Vexations to have another look at the article. I still don't know if this artist is notable. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what was "questionable" about the reprint of the Times article, unless you don't AGF and suspect that the republished version was a fake... but I've now checked the Times original via Wikipedia Library and have added that ref, with its different title, though the freely-available online copy is a bonus for the reader who hasn't got access to the Times behind its paywall. PamD 23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The concerns in the deletion rationale appear to have been resolved. NemesisAT (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

118 Reunion

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

Non notable show. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Scotia

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

WP:TOOSOON. No major independent coverage or notable roles. Bettydaisies (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_15&oldid=1071993296"