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 18:20, 22 February 2022 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyote J (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 redirect to Top Chess Engine Championship. Policy-based discussion is against keeping. There are strong arguments here that the individual seasons of this chess engine competition are not covered in sufficient detail by independent reliable sources to warrant separate articles. There is however no consensus as regards deletion, redirection or merging. Redirection is a compromise, allowing editors to decide what if anything is worth merging from the history. Sandstein 12:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCEC Season 21

TCEC Season 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to be an article on Wikipedia; it violates WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Most of the sources are from the TCEC wiki run by TCEC. The other sources are from Chessdom, which sponsors TCEC, GM Matthew Sadler, who helped in running TCEC Season 21 by creating the book used in the TCEC SuFi, the author of the Seer engine that participated in TCEC this season and the github of the Stockfish engines that participated in TCEC this season. Furthemore, the source from GM Matthew Sadler is from Youtube and the source from the Seer author is from Imgur, both websites hosting user-generated content and thus violating WP:USERGENERATED. Checking to see if there is any coverage in TCEC Season 21 in reliable secondary sources, the only two results in Google News about Season 21 talk about one specific game from the season, and so really belong in the Notable Games section of main TCEC article rather than here. No reason for this article to exist. Redirecting to the main Top Chess Engine Championship article can also be considered. Paula Bradley (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating theis page because it suffer from the same problems as the article on TCEC Season 21:

TCEC Season 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from even worse problems than the article on TCEC Season 21, as they do not have any sources whatsoever apart from a link to the TCEC archive:

TCEC Season 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep: I found a number of other independent third party sources for TCEC Season 21, which in addition to the two sources on Google News means that the article do not violate WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. 96.63.208.23 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just took a look at the sources you added to the article, and the sources are by and large Youtube videos. Youtube videos are not reliable sources, according to WP:RSPYT, unless the video come from some notable and reliable news organisation such as NBC. Most of the other sources added, while coming from chesschest.com, are really just Youtube videos embedded into the article, whose other contents consists solely of the description section of the Youtube video copied word for word into the article, so once again, WP:RSPYT applies, and this article still violates WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:GNG. Paula Bradley (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The situation with the articles on TCEC Season 21 and Season 22 is completely different from the articles on TCEC Season 14 to TCEC Season 20. In those articles, there is enough notability established in the articles, as there is a reference to multiple reliable third party sources, such as Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez's article on each TCEC tournament in the ICGA Journal. Matthew Sadler didn't start creating the book for the TCEC Superfinal until TCEC Season 21, so the articles he wrote about the TCEC retrospectives do count as a valid third party source for the TCEC Season 14 to TCEC Season 20 articles. And there is also plenty of news coverage in the previous TCEC seasons, such as this for TCEC Season 15. However, in contrast, there is virtually nothing reliable or noteworthy about TCEC Season 21 or TCEC Season 22 anywhere, and the same could be said about the early TCEC seasons from 10 years ago. No articles about TCEC Season 21 in scholarly journals, or news articles, et cetera. Only two blog posts talking about one game each in TCEC Season 21, which, as I said above, already has a home on the main TCEC article. Paula Bradley (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree about the previous seasons and Matthew Sadler's articles. Matthew Sadler's articles about TCEC are 1. only about the Superfinal, with the Premier Division only mentioned in a few articles in passing, so none of the divisions below the Superfinal are notable, and 2. published either on chessdom.com or on the main tcec-chess.com website, which means that they aren't independent enough sources according to your criteria. Some seasons such as TCEC Season 14 or TCEC Season 19 as a result just aren't notable enough for an article right now, because only one reliable independent secondary source (ICGA Journal) is not really enough to establish notability. It's the same reason why the Arimaa Challenge doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia, but is rather merged into the main article on Arimaa#Arimaa Challenge. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TCEC Season 14 has this reliable independent secondary source [1], so I take back what I said about TCEC Season 14. However, chess24 only has news articles about TCEC season 14 and season 15, so my point still holds for the seasons between TCEC Season 16 and TCEC Season 19. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two articles [2] and [3] mention TCEC Season 16 and TCEC Season 20 in passing, but don't go into any depth about the event itself. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This dissertation also references TCEC season 14, 15, and 16, but doesn't go into much detail about them. [4]. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This research paper [5] references the winners of TCEC seasons 1-7, but only in a footnote, which isn't enough to establish notability for those seasons. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this article in the ICGA Journal: [6], one of the authors of every article about TCEC in the ICGA Journal, Nelson Hernandez, contributes the books for the lower divisions between TCEC season 9 and season 19. This means that if Matthew Sadler's sources from Season 21 aren't independent, then the ICGA Journal articles by Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez aren't independent for Season 14 to Season 19 either, and so don't count. Which means that Season 14 to season 19 aren't really notable either. And according to [7] Nelson Hernandez is also involved in TCEC Season 20, so the ICGA Journal article for TCEC Season 20 isn't independent either. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in reality, neither of the self-published Matthew Sadler articles nor the Nelson Hernandez articles on the ICGA Journal are reliable independent secondary sources, and so the notability of all the TCEC season articles is up for question, not just the ones listed for deletion by the OP. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no evidence of any notability for e.g. the Season 22. Fram (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep Disclaimer, I wrote most of the articles. I lean keep because:
  • Although it's not widely covered in chess media, I know for a fact that many GMs are following the games (in turn because the games feature very high-level chess - computers are already superhuman, and the competition games are run on very strong hardware). Hence previous season articles have directly quoted them [8]. There's more evidence of this from the way TCEC games are sometimes used to illustrate concepts, e.g. in the analysis of one of the games in this article, the author references a game from "TCEC 2019" to show why a particular line doesn't work.
  • I know Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez didn't write an article for the most recent season of the TCEC in the ICGA journal because Guy Haworth died recently. Nelson Hernandez is still alive, but he's indicated that he doesn't have chess knowledge (i.e. he's not a strong player); he only maintains an opening database.
  • In the same way I know Matthew Sadler didn't write an article about the Season 21 superfinal because he put all his time into a book on it. There are some sample pages here. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book so I can't write it into the article.
  • Finally, Season 22 doesn't have any coverage yet for obvious reasons - the top engines haven't played yet. As of time of writing League 3 is ending soon, so there'll be weeks more before the premier division and superfinal.
So I lean keep. I suppose one could delete the articles until the (I'd say inevitable) coverage shows up, but that 1) seems silly and 2) would put a tight deadline on writing things, since I'm pretty sure there's a page view spike during the superfinal.
PS, I'm going to notify WP:CHESS about this AfD.
Banedon (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the first bullet point:
  • "Although it's not widely covered in chess media, I know for a fact that many GMs are following the games (in turn because the games feature very high-level chess - computers are already superhuman, and the competition games are run on very strong hardware)." Unfortunately per Wikipedia policy, you'll need a reliable source saying that many GMs are following the tournament in season 21 and 22. Right now it's just your word vs the lack of reliable sources in the media.
  • "Hence previous season articles have directly quoted them [9]." That linked sentence needs a source, and it should have a source in this video from chess24 [10], as well as the TCEC Season 17 retrospective by Sadler, both of which I have inserted into the article there.
  • "There's more evidence of this from the way TCEC games are sometimes used to illustrate concepts, e.g. in the analysis of one of the games in this article, the author references a game from "TCEC 2019" to show why a particular line doesn't work." Single games being mentioned in an article don't warrant the creation of individual articles on TCEC seasons, just a particular entry in the Notable games section of the main TCEC article. (or not even that, there are plenty of games used to illustrate chess concepts out there in the world, but there isn't a article on every tournament from which the games are derived from).
  • In addition, if I remember correctly, Magnus Carlsen has mentioned in a stream archive on Youtube that grandmasters are following the games from the International Correspondence Chess Federation closely as well, for the same reason they follow TCEC, yet Wikipedia does not have any articles on individual ICCF seasons/tournaments, because there is no notable coverage of ICCF from reliable third party sources. TCEC in season 21 and season 22 in this case seems to be very similar to the ICCF, so unless more sources are found, the precedent is already set with individual ICCF seasons/tournaments not having their own Wikipedia articles.
About your third bullet point, can somebody with access to The Silicon Road to Chess Improvement confirm that the book talks about season 21? The sample pages do not make any mentions of Season 21 at all.
Your comment as a whole doesn't mention TCEC Seasons 1-4 at all. Without any other further sources for those articles, those seasons are probably still not notable enough to be placed on Wikipedia, even if additional sources are found for Season 21 and 22. Especially since it was Leela Chess Zero's popularity and participation that caused TCEC to become notable enough in the chess community back in season 14, rather than the niche competition in some backwater of the chess world that it was prior to Leela. Paula Bradley (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have any articles on individual ICCF seasons/tournaments, because there is no notable coverage of ICCF from reliable third party sources I don't think so. Wikipedia does not have any articles on individual ICCF seasons/tournaments because nobody has been interested enough to write an article for them, in turn because (I'm pretty confident) the pace is super slow and tournaments take years to finish. I am not going to debate you however, and will let the AfD run its course. Banedon (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add: it looks like Matthew Sadler wrote a section in New in Chess on S21 specifically. See sample pages, page 23. Banedon (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The TCEC S21 Superfinal has been covered by GM Sadler in the New In Chess yearbook, number 141, pages 23-34. I would consider that this qualifies for notability. Skiminki (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Skiminki: Thanks for the source, I've added it to the article. By the way, do you by any chance have a copy of Matthew Sadler's The Silicon Road to Chess Improvement, and if you do, could you confirm User:Banedon's statement above that the book also talks about Season 21? Paula Bradley (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have the book yet (waiting for the Kindle edition), so I asked GM Sadler. He says that S21 was too late to make it in his book. However, his book has games from S20. I can add more detailed references once I have the book. He is also planning to write the TCEC article on S21 soon-ish. The writing is a bit delayed as he's been busy with other things as Banedon notes. What comes to S21 and S22 coverage, he has his Youtube channel accompanying the book with dozens of games covered ( https://www.youtube.com/c/SiliconRoadChess/playlists ). While the channel is not hugely popular--likely because it's quite advanced--it still indicates that the current TCEC seasons have relevance at the GM level. Skiminki (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, well then I don't think The Silicon Road to Chess Improvement could be used as a source for this article, although feel free to add it to the TCEC Season 17, TCEC Season 18, TCEC Season 19, and TCEC Season 20 articles. The sample pages from the book already have example games from the four seasons though. Paula Bradley (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer about potential conflict of interest. Someone suspected this of me, so I probably should clarify. I'm a long-time TCEC follower, chat moderator, and I've provided some technical assistance over the years. I maintain a games archive. I'm not directly involved with the TCEC tournament organization, its decisions, participating engines, opening books, competition events and rules, etc. The reason I was able to get a quick answer from GM Sadler about what's in "Silicon Road" is because he happened to be in the chat. In hindsight, I should have mentioned this earlier. Skiminki (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While I agree that the sourcing on these is weak, WP:SELFPUBLISH includes the following exception, which I believe applies here: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Regardless, computer chess is not a very controversial topic, so I'm not that worried about strictly adhering to the letter of the Verifiability policies. The articles are well-written and informative so I think I would rather err on the side of keeping them for such a borderline case. Nosferattus (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those who voted to keep, does that vote only pertain to the TCEC Season 21, or to TCEC Season 21 and TCEC Season 22 articles, or does the vote also pertain to TCEC Season 1, TCEC Season 2, TCEC Season 3, and TCEC Season 4 as well? Because those articles are even worse with citations and notability: apart from a one line sentence in the beginning of the articles, the articles on the first four seasons are just a list of tables with one source/external link linking to the TCEC archive. There might be articles about TCEC Season 21 and Season 22 by Matthew Sadler, New in Chess, the ICGA Journal, et cetera in the future, but has anybody written articles or produced content on Youtube about TCEC Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, and Season 4? Consensus might be building that TCEC Season 21 and TCEC Season 22 is borderline notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia, but no consensus has yet been developed for TCEC Season 1, TCEC Season 2, TCEC Season 3, and TCEC Season 4. Paula Bradley (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote to keep was intended for Season 21 and onwards. While I do agree that S22 doesn't yet have great sourcing, it is likely to get reliable sources as the season progresses. With the on-going season, I would rather take the bit more conservative approach and only consider it for deletion once the season is over. And the same with future seasons. Skiminki (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What comes to the early seasons, I have no strong opinion. If the pages must go, then I would suggest merging them as "TCEC early seasons" or so. The first article by Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez is for Season 10. The earliest Chessdom article is for Season 6. There exists annotated games by chess masters in the PGN format starting from Season 1, and the first GM-annotated game that I know of is from Season 2. However, these annotated PGNs are currently not publicly available as far as I know. I am planning to add these games in the official TCEC games archive at some point to preserve history. (The long-term archive is here: https://github.com/TCEC-Chess/tcecgames ) Skiminki (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So some seasons are notable because a mainstream publication mentioned them, but others are not? All or nothing I say. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. GNG not met and no evidence the individual seasons are notable. The extensive lists of statistics have no place on Wikipedia; we are not a computer chess almanac. The separate season articles should be summarized up into a single article. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into a single article ("TCEC Seasons" or some such). There just aren't the sources available for each "season" at this time. Also would be okay with an article on 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 or something similar). Hobit (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into TCEC seasons and redirect. Expand them back when sources become available. On the one hand, this is the highest level of engine chess (a cross-section of computing, artificial intelligence, mathematics and chess), and it is non-profit/open source. On the other hand, because of undisclosed COI editors adding first hand accounts of literally EVERYTHING into these articles, they contain or constitute in their almost entirety, violations of our core content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV). Much of the content contained in these articles arguably are NOTWEBHOST violations. I would advise TCEC/TCEC supporters to copy the current versions of these articles into their own wiki, so no information is lost (information, I believe, is accurate but entirely unverifiable) and keep on Wikipedia only summaries supported by independent reliable sources. Not only is the current level of detail unverifiable, but it is likely to remain unverifiable in the future, as reliable secondary sources are unlikely to write or be able to write about these seasons in so much detail. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Top Chess Engine Championship: Any useful information should be added to the main page then redirect. Gusfriend (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of the articles have reliable independent secondary sources. Since Matthew Sadler's seems to be involved in TCEC, his article in the New In Chess Yearbook, which some people mentioned above, isn't a reliable independent secondary source either. Even if Sadler's article in the New In Chess Yearbook is a reliable independent secondary source, it only explains the TCEC season 21 superfinal, so everything apart from the TCEC season 21 superfinal would still have to be deleted for not being properly sourced. 130.126.255.139 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per Stifle. ––FormalDude talk 13:43, 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 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. Star Mississippi 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Reed

Rocco Reed (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 substantial coverage outside of adult industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've heard of him. I go to Wikipedia to find out stuff about people I have heard of. If there is no information then Wikipedia is incomplete. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement above should be disregarded since it has no connection to wikipedia policy.TheFinalMigration (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian XXX

Christian XXX (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 coverage outside of industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more time for policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No, industry fluff does not count towards notability at all, this has been well-established in dozens and dozens of pornography deletion discussions. Second, the Village Voice article no longer seems to exist. There's an XBiz article about the supposed VV profile, and this forum post is allegedly by the author saying it was coming out in VV soon, but it is curious that it cannot be found in any archive or reprint. It's only from 2006, not like we're trying to track down something from the 70s here. Even if located, it would only be a single, possible source. Still short of notability requirements. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras, I posted the two archived links above. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hopefully this relist actually helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Zaathras. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. Industry blotter does not count towards notability, while an article in Village Voice, albeit in two parts, is insufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 8 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. ✗plicit 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pumper

AfDs for this article:
Brian Pumper (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 coverage outside of industry publications, except for a brief mention in an article about someone else. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Musical Work listed on Spotify with over 200 monthly listeners.[1] Crime news attention.[2] Rusty5231B (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having 200 listeners on Spotify is not an independent secondary source. What you'd need is a secondary reliable source discussing him and his music. Also, VladTV is not a reliable source. VLADTV is presently offering an opportunity for users to submit articles and related or included photographs, music, videos, interviews, news content, software, and any other Writer-generated information (“Articles”) for consideration for publication on the VLADTV Website using the “VladTV Writer Tool.” The Writer Tool is being provided at the sole and absolute discretion of VLADTV, and may be terminated at any time without prior notice to you, or to any individual user who has submitted an article (a “Submitter”). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#listing_sources_at_AfD_instead_of_just_fixing_the_article? contained a suggestion to fix the article rather than list additional citations here. Article fixes have been made. Rusty5231B (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed pretty much all of that as poorly sourced. Citing a blog post that is an attack piece on another BLP to state in this BLPs article that they are look alikes? Citing passing attacks on them in interviews in their article? Citing a blog post on noisy about who they would cast in a movie that doesn't exist? Citing a gossip column in a BLP to make claims about this BLP and another BLP? Citing Gawker, which is generally unreliable at WP:RSP for claims about BLPs? None of that was fit for an article, especially a BLP article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "spotify".
  2. ^ "Pumper Arrested".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:ANYBIO: AVN awards, not notable. No SIGCOV in other areas of his work. SN54129 09:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howl at the Moon piano bar

Howl at the Moon piano bar (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 business. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:51, 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. per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding (2021 film)

The Wedding (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude talk 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course it meets criteria. Including due to the fact that in the first week (!) in Poland it was watched by 140,000 people (link) + two awards at the Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival (link). Atlantico 000 (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm looking and found quite a bit of coverage. More could absolutely be added, but what I'm finding shows that there will absolutely be more coverage out there. Apparently the film got more than its fair share of controversy considering the topic - which is not a surprise given how controversial the topic of WWII and Poland is on Wikipedia. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To editor FormalDude: I am curious if user FormalDude did any research before submitting the article for deletion, as its encyclopedic character (as a blockbuster film by an acclaimed director) is obvious. Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 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.
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) ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuşadasıspor

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

A club with no SIGCOV. The only sources I could mention are statistic websites or trivial. Moving on, Kuşadasıspor also fails WP:FOOTYN, as they have never played in the Turkish Cup from what I can tell. However, I will be ok if this article is soft deleted or draftified if enough work is done to improve AND find sources. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment PROD removed with no improvement to the article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Keep? Technically they do pass WP:FOOTYN, they do play in the Turkish Cup with five record games on soccerway.com and here is one of their qualifying round games [16]. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Govvy, has played in the national cup and therefore considered notable. Needs improving, not deleting. Nominator has clearly not bothered with BEFORE to try and find sources. GiantSnowman 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Govvy passes WP:FOOTYN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm obviouly not eligible to vote this pool, but, I'd like to underline that this team competed at TFF First League, second highest football competition of the country, as well. If this club fails notability, so many clubs will need to follow. Regards. Isik (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Playing in the national cup alone is not a NFOOTYN pass: it clearly states that a club must pass the GNG, and notes that playing in the cup generally indicates that there is a GNG pass (and NFOOTYN is an essay anyways, so I see no reason to bring it up). However, I've added some extra sources (result of only a nine minute work), and I suspect there are quite more not run-of-the-mill sources out there. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination hinges on an erroneous statement about cup play, and the nominator's personal inability to find sources. (For what it's worth, I'm not great at browsing in the Turkish language either.) Geschichte (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found those few sources I posted in a few seconds of a google search! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing Nomination I realize I had made a mistake here. Apologies if this inconvenienced anyone. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday: A Play in Verse

Good Friday: A Play in Verse (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)

Currently sourced by a reference which does not reference the work, and a YouTube video. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 TT me 22:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is at least mentioned here. I think that criticism of this play is likely to show up in criticism of collections of Masefield's works, and there might be plenty of it, but it is hard to find on Google. Someone ought to do a serious search for scholarly criticism of this play before we toss it out based on a casual google search. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you Ssilvers, your reference has pointed out a inaccurracy in the article copied over from John Masefield#Collections of poems (1916 >> 1914). I started the article because I wanted to know more about "Good Friday", a major work of verse by a future Poet Laureate. If it fails WP:GNG then WP:GNG, a recent work by anonymous editors, is not fit for purpose. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This work easily passes WP:GNG. A sampling of reliable sources providing significant coverage: Reviews in The Independent, North American Review, and The Nation; discussion in John Masefield: A Critical Study (pages 64–66); and discussion in an article on "Modern Passion Plays". These are all sources that I could freely read on Google Books; there are likely more that aren't indexed there or don't have a sufficient preview to confirm significant coverage. Also less freely available are results from a Wikipedia Library search, including reviews in Poetry and The Times. I hope those are all useful for improving the article, in addition to showing there are plenty of sources to support notability. --RL0919 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional input needed since one keep is the creator and the other keep and a comment do not constitute consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actress (2007 film)

Actress (2007 film) (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)

Film appears to fail the requirements for WP:NFILM. Everything found in a BEFORE was database entries, articles about the release, or interviews mentioning the film.

PROD removed when citation added, but that citation is simply an interview with the director. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above sources, which demonstrate sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bouzié

Bouzié (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found. Everything found in a BEFORE seems to be database listings and passing mentions.

PROD removed with no explanation or improvement. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 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! 22:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google Books shows several examples of coverage that suggest sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir R. Andrabi

Tahir R. Andrabi (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 Yousef Raz (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator"[reply]

Delete , no WP:SIGCOV both sources are from a university. The two sources hardly qualify as "Independent of the subject" or WP:SECONDARYYousef Raz (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5. Lack of coverage is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to expand the page with IRSs. Cabrils (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the deletion nominator here first nominating and then also voting at the same time to delete the article?
Comment Am I not allowed to expand my reason for nomination?Yousef Raz (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cabrils as a straightforward WP:NPROF #5 pass, and suggest nominator withdraw the nomination. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:32, 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 02:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anchimolius

Anchimolius (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)

Spartan who is marginally famous for being mentioned by Herodotus, but did not do much of significance and has no real lasting notability other than other historians repeating what Herodotus wrote. The single source of information that itself does not confer notability does not pass Anchimolius passed WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. TartarTorte 20:42, 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! 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No coverage except a few sentences in Herodotus, and I don't see any suitable merge targets. I don't think even the battle is notable enough for a standalone article, although it could possibly be mentioned at Phalerum. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. I'll likely change my !vote to merge instead if someone can produce a suitable target. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A brief mention in Herodotus isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 14:54, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Marquis

Hank Marquis (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 general notability guidelines and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. I don't see any significant coverage about Hank Marquis himself by reliable sources EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 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 keep. ✗plicit 23:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Clark (actor)

Steve Clark (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)

I declined an A7 tag on this, as there is an indication of importance (bit part in various 1930s films). However, I'm not sure exactly what to do with it, so I think a discussion here is best. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - American Film Institute source lists 240 films as actor, 2 as producer, 1 as a writer, 1 as production misc, and 1 as a stand-in. And that doesn't count his television work. He is notable. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he was in a significant number of movies.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:21, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargav Sri Prakash

Bhargav Sri Prakash (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 written like an advertisement and I have significant reason to believe this is due to large amounts of anonymous COI editing. I've opened a discussion on the COI noticeboard here

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

All existing sources focus either on projects Bhargav has been involved in, or are just lists of people which is not notable per WP:LISTBIO. Overall fails GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I examined the first 20 references. There is 3 interviews that fail WP:BLPPRIMARY, lots of passing mentions and several profiles, one of which is quite big but all of them are in relation to FriendLearn. There is no secondary sourcing. Nothing in Gbooks Google Scholar has an entry: [17] but it is not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disclose that I have edited this article and related articles in the period of the last 3 years since i joined with a wikipedia account. I do not have COI as I have tried to explain here on noticeboard thread.

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

My opinion is this article could be improved instead of deleted because of following reasons. This living person has gained verifiable online coverage at least since 2012. Some articles describe him in headline as "pioneer",[1] in the body of article as "inventor of digital vaccines",[2] and in tables as "notable and renowned Indian entrepreneur"[3], "notable list of alumni"[4], etc. This provides evidence for WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV. The flowery adjectives may have been copied in to the article over time which has now made it into an unacceptable promotional tone, which I think can be corrected with involvement of experienced editors. I myself have made mistake of language tone as experienced editor has pointed to me. For kind information, many students in College of Engineering, Guindy Anna University hostel and living close to campus must be editing CEG related pages, like even me when I was a student.

For consideration of others, I wish to list what appears to me as reliable sources such as; government of India journal reports, newspapers, channels that have editorial boards. Almost all of these articles are full profiles and not lists falling under WP:LISTBIO or passing mention. These are already in the article but not concentrated within first 20. They appear to me to meet WP:SECONDARY although I am not having as much experience. So, please forgive if I making a mistake here.

Lakshmipriya Nair (5 September 2020). "Digital Vaccines Build Resistance to COVID-19 Causing Hygiene-related Behaviours". Express Healthcare, Indian Express.

Cromwell Schubarth (31 May 2013). "FriendsLearn Shows Food Fights can be Educational". Silicon Valley American City Business Journals.

Dean Takahashi (17 March 2013). "FriendsLearn Wrapping Up its Kickstarter for Food Fight Game with Push into India". VentureBeat.

Naomi White (11 February 2021). "Could this video game be the secret to getting your kids to eat healthier". Essential Kids.

Sushila Ravindranath (20 March 2017). "Healthy lifestyle choices: Fooya helps change kids' behaviour towards food in a fun way". Financial Express.

Udhav Naig (3 March 2013). "Play and Learn". The Hindu.

Brian Dolan (18 December 2020). "Moderna, FriendsLearn and the legal carve-up over who owns the digital vaccine". Exits and Outcomes.

Erin Kutz (10 February 2011). "Kauffman Labs Brings In Education-Focused Entrepreneurs from Massachusetts, Michigan, and Bay Area". Xconomy.

Leila Hawkins (8 September 2020). "Can a Digital Vaccine tackle COVID-19?". Healthcare Global.

Caitlin Kizielewicz (10 February 2021). "Mobile Game that Uses Implict Learning Improved Children's Short-term Food Choices". ScienMag Science Magazine.

Rupali Mukherjee (29 December 2020). "Now Digital Vaccines to help promote healthy eating in kids". The Times of India.

"The Final Day of SRCC Business Conclave Concludes with Inspiring Lessons". DU Beat. 14 February 2020.

"An app to help children choose healthy food". The Hindu Business Line. 28 December 2016.

"Mobile game that uses implicit learning improved children's short-term food choices". ScienceDaily. 10 February 2021.

staff (8 October 2021). "History of the metaverse". Real Hacker News.

Following are potential sources which are not in the article, which more experienced editors can consider whether it can be added to improve quality

Shirlene Grace Isaac (31 May 2019). "Chennai based Parent Develops an App that gets to Fight Junk Food Monsters and Count their Calories". The New Indian Express.

Press Trust of India (25 December 2017). "fooya! Founder in patent war over digital vaccine". Business Standard.

6ParkNews Desk (6 October 2021). "The metaverse is taking over the physical world". 6ParkNews Louisiana.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

CoinYuppie (20 December 2021). "Ultra detailed metaverse panoramic perspective from the past to the future". CoinYuppie.

https://jmir.altmetric.com/details/94535502/news Pastacho (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Indian health-tech pioneer develops the world's first digital vaccine candidate for COVID-19". Times Now. ANI News. 31 July 2020.
  2. ^ Nikhila Natarajan (21 January 2018). "Indian start-up resists Boston firm's bid to trademark digital vaccines". First Post.
  3. ^ Dr Deepti Gupta (June 2016). "Escalation of Entrepreneurship in Assorted Segments in Indian Market" (PDF). International Refereed Journal of Reviews and Research. ISSN 2348-2001.
  4. ^ https://www.aaceg.org/notable_alumni/bhargav-sri-prakash/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's hard to know where to begin with this one - there are way too many references to check fully. But here are a few I did look at: 1) I cannot verify the existence of the "International Refereed Journal of Reviews and Research" (last reference). There is a web site with such a name [18] but it has published only one issue and seems unrelated to the citation here. 2) I also can find no trace of the publication listed here as a book - which oddly has an ISSN. The foundation listed as publisher exists but I have failed to locate the publication 3) this person has published 2 or 3 articles, all with 6 or more other authors (may be normal for that field), and the 2 that I find in Google Scholar have each been cited only once. What this tells me is that it will be hard to know how notable this person is without looking at all or at least most of the references. I also wonder about the lengthy section on tennis, which seems unrelated to the focus of the article and could be summed up in a simple sentence: "In his youth he played tennis competitively." Lamona (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's so much chicanery going on in references. In addition to problems identified above by Lamona, punjabmirror.com, a blog, is listed as published by Bennett, Coleman and Co. There are multiple refs to scienmag.com, a content scraping site who have had their twitter account suspended. So many refs to self-published content. Two are direct wordpress/.blog sites. Screening for notable publications, all (Hindu, Financial Express, ET) are interviews or product announcements. The journal cites are to papers authored by the subject or about the product of his company; they don't even begin to satisy WP:NACADEMIC. Elsewhere on the web, Google news shows only product related hits. Most of the top search hits have been included in the article here and none appear independent. Hemantha (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article sure deserves an advert/POV/COI tag but I believe that we ought to make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed there are unreliable sources wordpress blogs/lists that must be weeded out as Hemantha has pointed out but I have found numerous reliable secondary sources that provide evidence to satisfy GNG. After trying to unravel the spaghetti in this article (incl talk pages) - and having searched and studied the background references (which I copy-paste from the existing article to make it easier for other editors to dissect this), my view is that notability of this person is primarily attributed to accomplishments as an entrepreneur and inventor, not WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:ATHLETE. I must confess that I do not understand digital vaccines but I scanned through WP:PRIMARY the official CM website
  • His invention of digital vaccine and fooya health game has obtained coverage from many reputable organizations (which have editors/boards and authors). There is a trail of markers of evolution spanning more than a decade. Reliable secondary sources demonstrate synthesis of positive and negative news.

The strongest WP:SECONDARY WP:MEDRS is from a peer reviewed publication of a systematic review in journal of Global Health Promotion about the product he created. It has been indexed by the US National Library of Medicine. It provides findings based on an independent analysis by that paper's authors who have disclosed no ties/COI with this individual/his affiliated organizations or the fooya app. The authors conclude that the fooya program is more effective at engaging children as a result of gamification among evidence based cardiovascular disease prevention initiatives evaluated for effectiveness in an educational setting.[1]

He seems to have won awards/recognition from organizations such as NASSCOM and Kauffman Foundation which have been mentioned in coverage from reliable media like Xconomy and CNBC Moneycontrol, which are in the existing article.

The intellectual property case with moderna therapeutics has been covered as a result of what appears to be an investigative piece by Firstpost - a fairly reliable secondary source.[2]

These provide further evidence of notability that is not based on WP:PRIMARY interviews or announcements.[3][4]

I think it is reasonable to assume that The Times of India[5], PTI[6], ANI[7] will not publish an announcement from an unvetted primary source. I base my logic on the view that a non notable person or insignificant organization is unlikely to gain coverage of their announcement from a number of reputable media channels, particularly in the way they describe and attribute him as 'inventor' [8] (listed as Editor's pick article, which is not in Wiki article btw).

Sources like ScienMag or Punjab Mirror undermine the article overall. I suspect not all contributors to Wikipedia are aware of these sources or their reputation (or lack of).

My view is that this makes him notable for his role as creator of the fooya program and as inventor of digital vaccines in light of the global prevalence of cardiovascular disease and childhood obesity.

In conclusion I feel that this article has existed on wikipedia since November 2013, Wikipedia readers would lose out important info about the inventor of digital vaccines if it were deleted when vaccines innovation is significant for our current times. I urge my editors to revert COI edits/inappropriate edits and remove the unreliable references, which I can also assistInfiNeuro (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Francisca Bertilia Chaves Costa; Lana Paula Crivelaro Monteiro de Almeida (14 March 2020). "Use of Educational Technologies in the Promotion of Children's Cardiovascular Health: A Systematic Review". Global Health Promotion. 27 (4): 32–41. doi:10.1177/1757975920909119. PMID 32172651. S2CID 212729023.
  2. ^ Nikhila Natarajan (21 January 2018). "Indian start-up resists Boston firm's bid to trademark digital vaccines". First Post.
  3. ^ https://digitalhealth.med.brown.edu/news/2020-12-04/digital-vaccines
  4. ^ https://www.edexlive.com/people/2019/may/31/chennai-based-parent-develops-an-app-that-gets-kids-to-fight-junk-monsters-and-count-their-calories-6373.html
  5. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/now-digital-vaccines-to-help-promote-healthy-eating-in-kids/articleshow/80010923.cms
  6. ^ https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/fooya-founder-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine-with-us-117122500406_1.html
  7. ^ https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/chennai-based-company-launches-app-to-educate-children-on-healthy-food-choices20210306042748/
  8. ^ https://business.medicaldialogues.in/fooya-and-moderna-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine
Unless there are multiple independent reviews of multiple products or extensive in-depth reviews of the single product, they do not count towards the notability of the product creator. ToI ref is completely about the product. PTI/ANI refs are interviews, as the "he said"s at each paragraph show and not independent. Edexlive is an advertorial, so blatantly does it gush about the product. Med Dialogues is a republication of earlier PTI story which itself is about disputes about his "inventor" claim. FirstPost does seem independent and in-depth, but the focus there is entirely on his patent dispute, not himself. Hemantha (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disclosure: I have edited this article many years ago at a time when I studied in Chennai. This person is undeniably notable. A simple Google search will give links to in depth reviews based on interviews and features by reputable channels about him his invention also company and product. The main reason for his popularity with students when I was in college and why maybe some young mission inspired young people "gush about the product" is because of the social impact purpose of the work. If you are not moved by children's health then one may look at it too critically for all the things that it is not. Children are a sensitive topic you know. If one resonates with the field and the innovation to address a clear problem in children's health then there is some thing here to appreciate I feel. I am recently a parent so this digital vaccine work is very relevant for us. Hemantha can you kindly present evidence of the EdX article being an advertorial? Not all positive reviews in media should be dismissed as paid. New Indian Express is a very reliable source if you ask me. Dismissing secondary source review reference based on writing style of the journalist is not fair I feel. I do not know what happened to fooya wiki page. One can see so many references including those listed here which show notability from reliable secondary sources for that product. fooya App has been featured on national TV channels like CNBC TV18 There are multiple reviews of the product that he created and designed. Digital vaccine concept itself is too good and it has many reliable secondary sources reviewing it like Brown University center for digital health Looks like some one has made mistake with deletion request in too much haste or maybe is this because of the huge anti vaxx pro vaxx sentiment I dont know. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to support my claim of Edexlive article being advertorial TNIE being a reliable (somewhat) source doesn't make whatever their parent puts out, reliable. Text like Wait, what? Bhargav Sri Prakash falls in the third category. Yes, he is probably the only one in that category., This app is going to be launched in schools here in India much to the joy of Indian parents who are going to bid adieu to all their parenting worries, at least with regards to food habits of course! isn't journalistic or WP:INDEPENDENT. For an instance of Edexlive promoting a fraud, see the one on "Drone Pratap" Hemantha (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with you that not all that one reads these days in media is high quality journalism or WP:INDEPENDENT. But I am not in agreement of your use of the EdexLive article from waybackmachine to illustrate point about dismissing secondary source review from TNIE. I have not yet seen any thing online about Bhargav Sir Prakash even remotely like the one you shared about "Drone Pratap". Have you? If so please share. Today would you dismiss positive reviews about any one in Forbes, NYT, WSJ, Time magazine because of what they carried historically (which were obviously paid/PR induced-influenced promotional articles) about Elizabeth Holmes? Chances are that most people will still trust anything they see on Forbes/WSJ/NYT but bash TNIE which goes to another conversation about double standard and inequity. I think as editors we can only form and express opinion based on face value and based on what is available in front of us. Unless of course there is clear evidence to the contrary of paid journalism. Tone or english quality of journalism is not a valid reason to question WP:INDEPENDENT I feel. However as humans there is no doubt that we all seek to confirm bias. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't keep repeating that Edexlive is TNIE. It is not; it's a separate publication. It is in no way comparable to NYT, WSJ etc all of which would carry a correction or an apology instead of silently deleting their mis-reports. Moreover this is not the place to argue about Edexlive. Your efforts would be better spent in showing WP:THREE independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Hemantha (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Hemantha that there is so much WP:REFBOMBing going on in this article that we need to implement WP:THREE. Actually, I would accept two compliant refs from the article supporters. Note that the notablility of the person, the company, and the products are three separate things. This article is a bio and needs RS that are in-depth and about him to establish notability. That does not include interviews, company announcements, or passing mentions. SpinningSpark 10:53, 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 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 01:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lusaka Voice

Lusaka Voice (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)

Zambian news agency appears to fail WP:NCORP. Notability-tagged since 2013. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources in the article and in searches show a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources that are significant are not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 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. No evidence of release, or other notability. If someone wants this to work on in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 01:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmdAsjad: The production house has finally announced the release date of this (Ayngaran) film and it will be released on May 5 2022.
Evidence: https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/gv-prakashs-ayngaran-to-finally-hit-the-screens/articleshow/91204024.cms Kannan.529 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayngaran (film)

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

An unreleased film that does not meet the requirements of WP:NFF. The film began its production sometime in 2017 but delayed since then. This source talked about a possible release in Jan 2022 but the film did not release. Source assessment follows. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Ab207
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The New Indian Express No Interview with the director Yes Yes ✘ No
The Hindu No Movie announcement Yes ? 1 para ✘ No
The Times of India Yes ~ WP:TOI ? Speculation of OTT release ? Unknown
Behindwoods No Press release No Entertainment website with no indication of any editorial oversight No Passing mention ✘ No
Indiaglitz No Press release No Entertainment website with no indication of any editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
Indiaglitz No Press release No Same as above Yes ✘ No
Behindwoods Yes No Same as above ? Unconfirmed speculation ✘ No
IANS feed No Statement from the film's unit Yes ? Short article ✘ No
Behindwoods No Statement from the director No Same as above Yes ✘ No
Lyricsmall ? No Database site No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As shown above, the film's production itself fails to meet the notability guidelines, thus falling short of WP:NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed new sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Very confusing. The article says that it was "cancelled" but also says it was released through digital distribution which would not be cancelled. One source states it was going to be moved, like many other films across the world were, because of Covid lockdowns but there seems to be no indication that this did, in fact, happen. Appears to have gotten put into limbo because of Covid and never made it out. Draftify instead of delete because there is at least a possibility that it will some day get released. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, the digital release did not go as planned, hence the film remains unrelased. Would not object draftifying if any user wants to maintain the page until it meets WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:NFF - nothing to explain why failure was significant Ravensfire (talk) 18:15, 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 redirect to Red Rocket (film). Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Rodriguez

Brittney Rodriguez (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 notable role (aka it's "too early" for this article), fails WP:NACTOR CapnZapp (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Subject has received significant coverage in New York Times and two regional papers) as a first time actor plucked off the street who received film festival recognition and awards during the film's release. Also received notability as a mural artist. This qualifies as unique and innovative per WP:NACTOR. Kire1975 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Comparable to Besedka Johnson. Kire1975 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I know you created the article, so please don't take it personally. I evaluated your arguments but unfortunately I don't see any strong arguments for canceling this AfD: coverage in multiple notable RSS is irrelevant; first time actor plucked off the street if anything the claim "the director uses first-time talent" can be sourced, but that does not justify this article; notability as a mural artist no source establish her notability as an artist independently of her film role; Comparable to Besedka Johnson No it isn't. Please understand you have done nothing wrong by creating the article - many people including myself have seen articles get deleted because of precisely NACTOR's two role requirement. CapnZapp (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Besedka Johnson notable outside her one film role? Kire1975 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to encourage you to bring up that question at its article's talk page. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have assumed you had a reason for saying "no it isn't". Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Rocket (film). The notability guidelines for actresses require multiple roles in significant productions. Since whatever reliable coverage we have is almost all connected with this one film, a redirect seems the most logical choise at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure we should circumvent the criteria for article creation that way. As I understand it, the intent of NACTOR is for any link to the actor to remain red until the two-credit criteria is fulfilled. See for instance Raegan Revord (link is red), an actress that is much closer to fulfilling NACTOR than the subject of the article discussed here. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of pieces of local/regional coverage, but the rest of the sources only mention her in passing in connection to the film. Does not meet WP:NACTOR at this time, and not enough content on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 19:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - The New York Times story is more than passing. Local/regional does not make RSS not RSS. Kire1975 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on what we are discussing here. The reliability of sources is not relevant. CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a "not enough content" section on the WP:BLP policy page? The reason I created this is I noticed that athletes get stub pages all the time. According to his own count, User:Lugnuts has created over 93,000 of them. Ioan Wetzer, for example, played five friendly matches for Romania in 1942 and nobody's trying to delete that page. Kire1975 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, just because other stuff exists is not a good reason to justify it here. That said, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Please examine WP:NACTOR and WP:SPORTSPERSON and take special note of the differences. (I haven't even visited Wetzer's page and I am not suggesting his article is appropriate. Nor am I suggesting it is inappropriate). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Rocket (film), as an WP:ATD. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Re: WP:GNG: the subject has received more than a trivial mention in the New York Times and two regional reliable, secondary, independent sources independent of the subject. 13:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read up on what we are discussing here. The number of newspaper mentions is irrelevant. Rodriguez is presented as an actor and an artist. There are no grounds for general notability. As for acting, she fails NACTOR. As for an artist I see zero notability. CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply From WP:GNG that you linked to first: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This is not about "number of newspaper mentions." Kire1975 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and understand the very next section (WP:SNG) before making irrelevant commentary. That is, ask yourself: for what accomplishments are you arguing Rodriguez is notable? If "as an actress", then WP:NACTOR applies. If "as a mural artist", then sorry, but a mere mention in passing in articles focused on the movie does not a notable mural artist make. Where is the coverage of her work and recognition thereof? If not an actor and not an artist, then what? The article offers no further suggestions. Which is why the article has ended up here. Let's be honest, the sole reason the article was created was her role in Red Rocket. It is clear to me she deserves an article if and when she gains a second notable role, not before. CapnZapp (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Rocket. I don't see scrubbing this page's history as a good option here, especially if she has other acting roles in the future. KidAd • SPEAK 21:07, 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 keep. North America1000 02:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opontia

Opontia (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)

2021 startup. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All we have are the current sources which seem limited to press releases and their rewrites about company securing funding and doing some investments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This a copy-and-paste text from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeWelcome_(2nd_nomination) --Geysirhead (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read both carefully you'll see it isn't a copy and paste. But so what even if it was? For other editors, just be aware that Geysirhead is bludgeoning the AfD at BeWelcome, edit warring (and was blocked less than a month ago for the same thing) at BeWelcome, and now stalking and harassing me for the temerity of !voting to delete an article (that this person never edited before but suddenly is showing a deep interest) at AfD. Hmmmm .. something strange here. HighKing++ 18:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-pasting comments (look their contributions) without researching is not ok. Please, provide some proof of your research on Opontia. And please discuss the arguments of Caphadouk and Adil Faouzi in a reasonable manner. Then, we can be in good faith again. Thank you in advance.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a pretty petty and absurd comment. If you bothered to check my contributions properly you'll see I always do my research and read all the references and search for more and often provide a breakdown of every reference and the reasons why I believe it fails NCORP. If you genuinely were commenting in good faith you'd already know that. If you wish, go ahead and open an ANI but comments like this at an AfD (and the ones on my Talk page) are not only irrelevant but disruptive. HighKing++ 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: current citations are good for notability, although some news are about fundraising, most contain also info about the company and are in-depth. Chelokabob (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough sources to establish WP:CORPDEPTH.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The volume of references is largely irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability so long as there exists a minimum two that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Doesn't matter if there's 1,000 references and they're all regurgitated press releases or company announcements. Also for the sake of argument lets assume (unless an obvious blog or something) that references appear in "reliable" sources - editors trying to argue that an article in the NYT or TechCrunch must automatically confer notability on the topic company are mistaken. As per WP:SIRS, each individual reference must meet the criteria - each reference must contain in-depth information on the topic company and also contain "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet NCORP as follows:
For those saying that references exist that meet the criteria, please provide links to WP:THREE references which you believe meet the criteria and a short explanation on why (or in the alternative, why the reasoning above is incorrect). HighKing++ 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the toughtful analysis. I hope the closing admin will remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more analysis of source quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I find that there are enough quality sources to establish notability even though some of them are interviews. The fact of being written in big business medias and giving in-depth analysis with no promotional tone leads me to think that it deserves Wikipedia page.--Art&football (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources? BTW, you realise that even though some of them are interviews is an admission that those references fail WP:ORGIND, right? HighKing++ 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further discussion of source quality, not quantity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Looks like there is enough coverage to be notable. Regarding [19] and [20], editor before said they are based on interviews,  but if they are not interviews and they dont contain too much quotations, then they are acceptable. As far as I am aware, if the journalist writes a story based on an interview then it is acceptable as it is considered verified and researched. Many articles are about funding, but I found that they contain details about the company which make them in depth. I also don't agree with editor before that an article based on an announcement is not acceptable. It is acceptable as long as they didn't just post what the company press release provided, but added their own commentary and info, meaning it is vetted and researched to be accurate.  Also, the company is ranked #12 in top 50 Middle East companies by Forbes. Zeddedm (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company seems comparatively new, but judging from the references available and the acquisitions, it appears to pass NCORP. As far as the definition of secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY we have "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" which makes the references like Techcrunch and Reuters written by staffs of respective media secondary. So these are acceptable independent content and are definitely not primary sources. Only press releases and company produced contents aren't acceptable references as per WP:ORGIND. Although the article may need pruning as it mentions few unimportant events/facts like "Opontia buys and grows e-commerce brands in the CEEMEA (Central & Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa)". Cirton (talk) 08:02, 1 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testify (Christian band)

Testify (Christian 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)

Have been watching this develop, but despite early tags for notability and referencing, no refs of any substance have appeared. WP:BEFORE finds very little beyond affiliate refs, I guess they were too early for much social media although Facebook is there with an identical image to the one in this article. A strong suggestion of COI editing perhaps. Without any reliable and independent refs, this fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Swanner for an explanation of why CD Baby is not and should not be considered a major record label. I won't rehash the whole thing here. Pichpich (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that too and have agreed that I was wrong. That still leaves four recording under major label. SonSound/SonSound Masterpiece was a Southern Gospel Label out of Bessemmer City, NC in the 1990s and 2000s. Chapel was out of Brentwood, TN and is now called Spring Hill Music Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113andathird (talk • contribs) 12:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christian vocal trio sings praises" January 8, 2010, Fort Polk Guardian (LA), Chuck Cannon; Section: entertainment
  • "Keeping the Faith" February 24, 2000, Times-Picayune, The (New Orleans, LA) Page: 20H3
  • "Meeting people where they're hurting is ministry of Testify" August 5, 2006, Tribune Business News, Griffin, Pam
  • "Southern gospel sound uplifts its audience" June 19, 2006, Haag, Diane. The Times; Shreveport, LA D.1.

I'm commenting rather than weighing in because I am truly undecided! JSFarman (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and non-secular media isn't significantly available via digital archives." I am finding this to be very true. Can you tell me where you found these articles above and can a novice like me access them? 113andathird (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 113andathird, I'll respond on your talk page. JSFarman (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I have recently made a lot of changes. And there will be more to come. Please let me know how this effects things and would love anymore advice you all would be willing to give.113andathird (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of additional sources found and others have been updated. Recordings on major labels. Sources siting award nominees and a song in a Top 40 Chart of the genres most notable magazine, The Singing News. (if I could find and Archive of The Singing News charts or the above cited source was updated there would be a lot more Top 40 songs listed and cited.) 113andathird (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a large number of reliable regional newspaper sources have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:04, 23 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) 23:35, 3 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 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RhyDizel

RhyDizel (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)

Subtle WP:ADMASQ on a non-notable artist and businessperson. His work as a graphic artist in the music industry doesn't make him automatically notable and the sources used are all paid-for placements. For example, Voyage LA allows user submission as does Shoutout LA so those two interviews have no value in this discussion. I also found this interview in The Hype Magazine but this is also user-submitted spam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Vijay

Maris Vijay (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)

sourced entirely to paid for spam/black hat seo - non-notable vanity spam and contributor pieces. CUPIDICAE💕 18:52, 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! 22:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing here approaching direct detailing by RS. Despite the nattering of likely paid or connected contributors, this fails GNG and ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 8 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. and a fourth re-list isn't going to help a poorly attended AfD. Language is an issue for sure Star Mississippi 01:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Zunnunova

Lola Zunnunova (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 bypassed AFC not clear how they are notable? Presenter of non notable show Kinomani, CEO of non notable company Milliy TV and leadership of non notable company Shukrona Media Production. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete from what I can tell a lot of the references are from entertainment blogs and don't contain in-depth coverage of the woman. There are also a few interviews. So the references are not super strong. That said, there does seem to be a good amount of them, I don't speak the language, and therefore I'm not going to assume more can't be found. Which is why I'm going with weak delete based on the poor quality of what there is, but with the caveat that it could really go either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit further opinions on non English (Uzbek and Russian) sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I have not checked the references, but an article should speak for itself without the need for a reader to check the referenced, and this article does not provide evidence of notability. Machine-translating 20 references is tedious; if the originator identifies three principal references, I will check them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Theroadislong says that this bypassed AFC. I will explain. A draft had been in AFC since the end of November 2021, and had not been reviewed. The author then copied the article into article space in February 2022, at which point I declined the draft, without reviewing the draft, as duplicating the article, and the article was nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 13 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ripley

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

A dispute between a new account who claims to be a relative of this former actress and other editors of the article was brought to WP:ANI here, where the point was made that there are questions about the notability of the subject, insofar as her appearance in the film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was about the only thing of note to have occurred for her (making it WP:BLP1E). Everything since then, whilst sourced, is just the ordinary type of things that people do in adult life. Community input on to whether Ms Ripley needs an article here rather than a paragraph in the film's article is sought. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article’s creator. The subject is internationally famous, admittedly as a child actor. Readers of the article want to know what has happened to her since the film. Certainly, her subsequent life has been more interesting than that of her co-star Adrian Hall (actor), whose stub article has not been nominated for deletion. However, I am not opposed to a bit of pruning if other editors think some of the information is too personal. For myself, everything quoted is backed by reliable sources and are Ripley’s own words. Jack1956 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me to meet our notability criteria and to be properly sourced and cited. Tim riley talk 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Tim Riley. SoyokoAnis - talk 21:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fails WP:NACTOR but passes WP:GNG. Several in-depth articles specifically about her is enough (including The Guardian 24 Feb 2002 and The Times 2 Jan 2005), and there's more coverage above that.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes WP:GNG while her extensive coverage in such broadsheets as The Guardian, The Times and the BBC website among others shows she remains notable. Dreamspy (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is adequate coverage of this subject, as many reporters and others are interested in the former child actor's later life. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After removal of apparent original research and tabloid-style coverage, this appears to be WP:BLP1E and a WP:GNG fail for a low-profile individual who has primarily received non-independent interview-based coverage since her one film role. Beccaynr (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see plenty of non-interview sources in the article. There is a difference between an interview and a profile. Mlb96 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has reliable sources and appears notable. Timetraveller80 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would agree with the arguments above, especially as the subject has attracted a reasonable level coverage in the media over the years. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is enough substantial coverage to show lasting notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slavomir Miletić

Slavomir Miletić (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 indications of any particular notability for this artist. This article was created in 2010 and has existed, essentially unchanged, with no citations other than the artist's own website (an insubstantial thing in itself). Google searches provide no information outside from some brief descriptions of one of his works on display in the Netherlands. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ De kinderen van SLAVOMIR MILETIC. "Algemeen Handelsblad". Amsterdam, 08-09-1962. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBNRC01:000035788:mpeg21:p022
  2. ^ Beeldhouwer-arbeider kreeg opdracht van zijn fabrieksdirectie. "Het Parool". Amsterdam, 22-11-1962. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ABCDDD:010841565:mpeg21:p005
  3. ^ Directie merkt: er werkt een beeldhouwer op de expeditie En geeft Miletic de opdracht van zijn leven. "Trouw". Meppel, 29-11-1962. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ABCDDD:010815971:mpeg21:p011
  4. ^ Moet u horen!. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 29-11-1962, p. 23. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010954006:mpeg21:p023
  5. ^ Zaandam weigert beeld voor het voltooid is. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 29-05-1963, p. 15. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010954154:mpeg21:p015
  6. ^ ZAANDAM WEIGERDE BEELD Gipsen model van Miletic viel in stukken. "Algemeen Handelsblad". Amsterdam, 18-06-1963. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBNRC01:000033307:mpeg21:p002
  7. ^ SLAVOMIR MILETEC, de wanhopige: „ Wat is mooi? Mijn hele hart ligt in mijn houtwerker!” Bevolking van Zaandam laat Joegoslavische beeldhouwende boer niet inde steek. "Nieuwe Haarlemsche courant". Haarlem, 21-06-1963, p. 7. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMNHA03:179288066:mpeg21:p00007
  8. ^ IK BEN EEN KIND VAN DE WOLVEN. "Algemeen Dagblad". Rotterdam, 04-10-1963. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:002819028:mpeg21:p00007
  9. ^ ZAANDAM VERNIELT BEELD. "Algemeen Dagblad". Rotterdam, 14-04-1964. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:002822038:mpeg21:p00007
  10. ^ Miletic gearresteerd bij beeldenstorm op Binnenhof. "Tubantia". Enschede, 06-01-1971. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:003330004:mpeg21:p00008
  11. ^ De Twee De rode draad in het leven van Miletic door AAN LINDO. "Het Parool". Amsterdam, 12-01-1991. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ABCDDD:010833195:mpeg21:p002
  12. ^ VERBANNEN KUNSTWERK 'DE HOUTWERKER' NA DERTIG JAAR MOGELIJK TERUG WAAR HET HOORT ZAANSE BEELDENSTORM woedt weer in alle hevigheid. "De Telegraaf". Amsterdam, 22-10-1994, p. 25. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-02-2022, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010692049:mpeg21:p025
  • Withdrawn I was not able to find any of these sources. (Perhaps my G-search was limiting to English sources, although I generally do not do that.) Thanks to all who found these sources and expanded the article! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:54, 20 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! 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Houston

Marcus Houston (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 subject played seven college football games for Colorado State. Notability seems to be lacking, Don't think this subject passes GNG based on sources. He was highly touted out of High School it seems, and does have a little bit of coverage from The Denver Post, but I don't think that alone would constitute passing GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: Spf121188, with this diff, tried to close as withdrawn. While they can certainly express their own change of view, WP:WDAFD does not permit withdraw/close once, as here, another editor has supported the deletion rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Cbl62 Spf121188 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Your intention to withdraw shows that you are able to keep an open mind about your own nomination -- something that pride sometimes prevents us from doing. The closer should take into consideration your change of view, and you are free to expound on that is you wish. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- GPL93, I would support this as an alternative, because the article is in terrible shape, borderline TNT worthy. There does seem to be notability here, but it appears none of this has really been demonstrated effectively in the article. Is this something you think you could work on a bit? If so I'll withdraw this one. Etzedek24 helped me with access to Newspapers.com, so I'll do better with performing thorough BEFORE searches. Spf121188 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spf121188: If I have time I will try, although it will essentially require replacing all existing content so I don't hate just WP:TNTing the whole thing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spf121188: Still needs work, particularly surrounding his high school career/recruitment and his issues with the coaching staff and the CU program, but I just finished rewriting a basic and more clear entry. Also, I'm not sure if a withdraw is permitted given the previous delete vote. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Houston qualifies as an exception to the "NFL game time or bust" rule of usual given his status as a HS recruit. He wasn't exactly Maurice Clarrett in terms of media profile, but somewhere between Marcus Dupree and Darrell Scott. Also, I don't agree with removing the USA Today All-USA team honor. --bender235 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Bender235, refer to this discussion when it comes to USA Today HS AA teams. This isn't the place to discuss it, but I wanted to just bring that to your attention. Hey man im josh is the one who took it out of the infobox, but that discussion is why. Spf121188 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bender235: There is no "NFL game time or bust" rule, as NGRIDIRON is an inclusive rather than exclusive rule. College athletes who never turn pro are and always have been eligible for inclusion if they pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per above cited sources. Players can still be notable without playing a game in the NFL. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG with SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources including Sports Illustrated (here). Whether rightly or wrongly, GNG is coverage-based, rather than performance-based. Houston didn't quite live up to the high expectations (636 rushing yards in his best season), but he got a slew of SIGCOV and thus clearly passes GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I agree this article passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War Brokers

War Brokers (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)

Provided references do not prove notability. No sign of reliable sources after a quick search, only a few listicles. Remagoxer (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game has zero reviews on Metacritic, which generally indicates that reliable secondary sourcing even within the video game press space aren't taking note. For that matter, there is only a single user review. WP:VG/S reliable source search produces zero results. The only two secondary sources in use are listicles without real in-depth coverage. While PC Gamer is reliable, I'm not sure about MakeUseOf, but these are still just short blurbs in a listicle. -- ferret (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also did an extensive search but found no more sources than what's mentioned in the article. Timur9008 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. Sources of article are not solid enough to demonstrate notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have anything new to say. Sultan the Sultan (talk) 07:33, 20 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 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KarMel Brewing Company

KarMel Brewing Company (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 seem to find any available sources on what looks like a pretty small brewery to check it meets WP:NCORP. The two cited sources are also not relevant - Eventbrite, an event management/ticketing website, is an unreliable source and the CS Monitor article doesn't mention the brewery. Bridget (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:A longstanding WP:SPA article about a company, created before the current WP:NCORP criteria. An Eventbrite listing and a general reference to a belief which inspired a product name are far from robust support for an article, and my searches are not finding evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 21:52, 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 redirect to List of statues of Leopold II of Belgium. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Leopold II of Belgium, Ghent

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

A non-notable statue does not become notable simply because it is removed. Although not a biography, the same principle as WP:ONEEVENT seems reasonably relevant here.

Aside from its removal which is already covered adequately at List of statues of Leopold II of Belgium, there is no significant coverage of this particular statue which is one among hundreds of minor local statues and plaques of Belgian monarchs, including tens or even hundreds depicting Leopold II, in the country. The fact we have an article at all smacks of WP:RECENTISM. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject of multiple reports by reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG. You can't just magic policies up out of nowhere by reinterpreting things like WP:ONEEVENT to mean whatever you like. -- The Anome (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to assume good faith. If you read WP:GNG, you will see that "[a] topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage (etc)". It then clarifies that meeting the criteria "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". As mentioned above, this subject is already handled amply in the List.—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and sources. Page seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 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 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! 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Bell

Jill Bell (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)

Seems like an industry professional but has no secondary sources to substantiate notability so I don't think this passes WP:GNG. I am also not familiar with typography so I can't determine WP:CREATIVE. BriefEdits (talk) 17:17, 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 for reasoning given by Eggishorn. Suitability of article to be re-considered when Wikipedia has better access to sources in the .ru domain (which cannot currently be done due to current events). (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Masodov

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

This is an article about a person who may or may not exist (which the article upfront about). All sources cited appear to be blogs. There may be more reliable non-English sources out there, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (from the article creator): I paid attention to this way "Find sources: "Ilya Masodov" – news" After that, Google suggested me some distinguished and reliable sources in Russian which not appear to be blog. Most definetely. So I changed my sources to more reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvinchechka (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - the equivalent Russian article is quite substantial with more references. My Russian is not good but I'll look further. The apparent problem here may be more to do with the creator's English skills. Ingratis (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (from the article creator): I admit that, my English isn't great. Speaking of the article and the Russian one in particular. If you research the sources the Russion one you can see I used other resources which aren't used in Russian version. So esentially it's not total translation even though I use the main poins from there to be sure.
Thank you for clarifying. I'm very sorry for my clumsy phrasing. All I was thinking of was that it's a bit daunting to translate a long article into another language in which one isn't fluent, but (not for the first time) I missed the point. Ingratis (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Inability to identify the real name of an author is no bar to notability, if they've been discussed in WP:RS. Compare the 18th century British pampleteer Junius (writer), who has never been identified; there's even a standalone article, Identity of Junius, on the problem. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (from the article creator): Well, with regard to inability to identify the real name of an author, we can only rely on Dmitry Volchek's words. He states and insists on Ilya Masodov is a real person. So now I guess the main question if we can trust to Dmitry Volchek's words. He's quite distinguished journalist and the editor-in-chief of Radio Free Europe in Russia. https://www.svoboda.org/contact (Дмитрий Волчек Главный редактор сайта Русской службы)
  • Comment. To clarify, my AfD nomination is not based on the existence versus non-existence of a person by this name. We have articles on other artists who cannot be named (see Banksy as an obvious example). The fact of the lack of provable identify could be notable. Or the artist could be notable for their work. Or both. I was just unable to identify reliable sources to support the notability. As a non-Russian speaker, I had concern about the Gorky media references, as they appear to be blogs with little editorial oversight. There's one or two other references that I can't tell if they are reliable sources or not. I'm not withdrawing the AfD yet, but would be interested to see if other experienced Russian editors can chime in. Singularity42 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fact, in Russian Wikipedia, there are no more references than in this version, but many respected and famous people who take their place in Russian Wikipedia speak about the character of the article.Faskat (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Faskat[reply]
  • Keep The sources are good enough. The genre is rather underground. That's why not many publishers dare editing his works. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more discussion would be helpful. Wonder if we could find some bilingual contributors to expand on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would ask Singularity42 to withdraw the nomination for the time being. I don't think the nomination was in any way faulty but at the time of the nomination there was no way to predict that searching for Russian sources would become almost impossible. I can see indexes that indicate there might be content about this author in .ru domains but for obvious reasons getting to those resources is, well, spotty. There's really no harm to the project in leaving this article in main space for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taunton & District Saturday Football League

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

Local amateur Saturday football league of which the highest division is in the 14th tier of the English football system and the lowest division is in the 18th tier (we would never even consider having a Wikipedia article on a 14th tier local sports league in any other country)! This is in no way different to Furness Premier Football League, Mid-Somerset Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League all of which were deleted for failing WP:GNG and not meeting the rule of thumb outlined at WP:FOOTYN.

A Google News search only has 4 results all of which are announcements relating to the league being suspended due to COVID or resuming again following the relaxing of lockdown measures. These are all in local papers with low circulation and fails to make a case for why this league should be covered in a global encyclopaedia. Google Books doesn't seem to have anything. The Western Daily Press has 4 trivial mentions of the league as per ProQuest. I searched the British Newspaper Archive only to find that coverage was limited to the Taunton Courier. In each case, the league took up a small portion of one column on one page of the newspaper edition and the stories were trivial coverage that any local organisation gets in their local paper (announcements of monthly/annual meetings and fixtures/results listings). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My British Newspaper Archive search linked in my nom didn't really yield much in the way of coverage. The results round ups in the local papers linked above don't necessarily mean that the subject needs covering in a global encyclopaedia. Several leagues were deleted last year with this type of coverage such as Mid-Somerset Football League. Bear in mind that the Bridgwater Mercury also churns out articles with the same level of coverage for a local bowling club, a charity golf fundraiser and the local annual fun fair. I'm sure that we can agree that those three events don't need a Wikipedia article! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your BNA search has an ampersand in the search term, and no results after the 1940s - I hadn't even realised the league was that old! If you remove it, and use [22]] instead it goes from 28 hits to 719 results. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through every single hit but all of the ones that I have seen are all from the Taunton Courier and seem to be either passing mentions or very basic results/fixtures round ups. In my view, Wikipedia articles should have at least some relevance to a global audience and should be careful regarding WP:BIAS. This is why we don't usually need to have articles on topics purely of local interest such as the annual scarecrow trails, Easter egg hunts, school fêtes etc. even if local papers do cover them in some depth. I can see your point, though, but we may have to agree to disagree on this occasion and see what other users' views are to gain consensus. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Since no-one else seems to be commenting here, I have to vote delete for the excellent reasons put forward by the nominator. We are not supposed to be Anglospherepedia, for all that some people see that as OK, and least of all in the context of a sport which, outside Britain, is historically at least less to the fore in the Anglosphere/Commonwealth than pretty much everywhere else. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 16:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Sullia Rebellion

Amara Sullia Rebellion (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 completely mesh Chidananda Kampa (talk) 16:38, 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 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Range

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

The article is sourced only to IMDB, which is ultra comprehensive and not reliable. Well, it also has a note as to how to download the film from another site, but that is still not providing any secondary coverage. Articles are to be built on secondary source in depth coverage of the topic in sources that are reliable, indepdent of the subject, and the multiple sources need to be intelectually indepedent of each other. We have nothing even remotely like that her, and my search for sources at both google and google books turned up absolutely nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, small review at TV Guide [23]. Not enough on its own, but a possible start? DonaldD23 talk to me 16:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film features significant involvement by several notable persons that have their own articles, and the article has 14 incoming links. Hoot Gibson was a leading performer in Hollywood at the time ("second only to cowboy film legend Tom Mix as a box office draw"). The article about character actor Eddie Lee lists his role in this film as one of his few significant roles. The articles John Elliott (actor) and Kitty McHugh have images from Sunset Range in their respective infobox, and the captions link to the article. In depth coverage is built over time, but even short articles can contribute to increased knowledge. The lack of online sources can likely be attributed to it being an old film, and a look in newspapers from the time is likely to show something. Feel free to tag it with {{sources}} instead of deleting it. It is easier to build on an existing article than to start all over. --Bensin (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We keep articles based on identified sources, the issue is not whether they are online or not. The one short review in the TV Guide and the brief mention mentioned above are not enough to justify keeping the article. Notability is not inhereited, so it does not matter how notable those involved in the production were, if we do not have indepth sources about it there is no notability. Still shots from a film are not secondary sources, and their use elsewhere on Wikipedia in no way adds toward notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: I have expanded this article a fair bit now with historic sources that are verifiable. These are period coverage so would you consider they sufficiently compliment more contemporary coverage? Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*weak delete i feel that deleting the article isnt the best choice, but it is a stub with few refrences, if someone adds more, ill vote keep, or if a sort of western movies page is made ill vote merge, and delete on this might be bad. so unless its improved or merged, delete -just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk)- 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Im really bad at this: I have expanded the article with newspaper sources and created a few sections. Is it enough for you to reconsider your !vote? Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep my issues with the article have been resolved, and it seems to be better now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im really bad at this (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the sources above that I listed, it is also found in several editions of the book "Video Hound's Golden Movie Retriever" [25]. I feel that while these items might not pass WP:NFILM requirements, I do think they pass WP:GNG as there is coverage. A search of newspapers from that time might yield more, but I don't have access to those. But, GNG seems to be established. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I love those Videohound books, they're typically not seen as notability giving as they're more of a database type guide. They tend to pride themselves on having just about every film they can squeeze into one large sized book, which is part of the reason I love those guides. They're not the best source to base notability on, essentially. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: You're right about coverage from historic newspapers - definitely coverage of this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is actually a reasonable amount of coverage on newspapers.com and I have taken the liberty of cropping a handful of these and creating a reception section from them. This isn't exhaustive and it seems it got press coverage in newspapers of that period. Although it's unlikely there will be much in the way of substantial full-page reviews of this film, there is definitely more than just passing mentions and no doubt more can be found still. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as newspaper coverage is enough to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted time

Trusted time (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 does not have any references since 2007. I've tried to find some, and "Trusted Time" does not seem to be a widely used technical term. You see it appearing in phrases like "a trusted time stamp", meaning a time stamp that is trusted. The only place I have seen "Trusted Time" used as a phrase directly, is in an English translation of a Chinese document. (I also know something about the technical topic of NTP mentioned on the page, and the text about NTP does not really seem to make sense.) David Malone (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found an encyclopaedia with a "trusted time" entry: ISBN 9781599043869 page 700. However, that encyclopaedia doesn't match the load of old hooey in this article, including the risible nonsense about the Freedom of Information Act and time sources. That encyclopaedia article cites doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5.ch054 as its source and István Mezgar's original article matches it pretty much word-for-word. But no-one else independently documents (rather than just plain copies, as the IGI encyclopaedia, from an author with a PhD in business administration, does) Mezgar's concept. So this article as it stands is unverifiable, and a wholly rewritten article based upon Mezgar would not be an idea that has actually escaped Mezgar and been adopted by other people. This fails both the verifiability and the no original research policies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trusted time is an important issue and is disussed in numerous sources in relation to networks (for example [26]), cryptography (for example [27]), and navigation (for example [28]). I don't know whether Uncle G is right about the sentence on Freedom of Information Act and liability, but it is certainly true that there are regulatory issues surrounding trusted time in some jurisdictions (see [29]) and the sentence is easy enough to remove if we don't like it. Deletion is not cleanup. SpinningSpark 08:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paper by Daryl only uses the phrase "Trusted Time" in the title to mean time that is trusted, rather than a specific term. The word trusted only appears once in the actual body paper, in a generic sense. The second paper by the FAA only uses the phrase "trusted time" one in the paper, again not to mean any specific technical term, but again, time which is trusted. The book only seems to use the phrase "trusted time stamp", in a general sense, rather than a specific technical term. (When the book talks about standard technical phrases, it seems to uses caps, like Trusted Computing Module or Trusted Third Parties). So, I don't think any of these show it is a standard concept worth documenting. David Malone (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew that someone would do the phrase search without looking at the following word. For shame! One of your sources is actually about Position, Navigation, and Timing (which is in its title, no less!) and happens to use the phrase "trusted time synchronization" once in the entire document. Another says "trusted time server", i.e. an NTP server that is trusted. Ironically, one only has to read as far as the second section of your "regulatory issues" paper, past the background section on Coordinated Universal Time and International Atomic Time, to find that it is about "Digital time stamps", i.e. trusted timestamps. And the one that only matches the "Toward Trusted Time" title of the paper is in fact about the error rates of NTP stratum 0 servers, which is of course grist for the mill in Network Time Protocol#Clock strata. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is about trusted time sources. The Cao and Veitch paper examines whether NTP Stratum 1 timeservers are reliable. How is that not about this topic? David Malone, I don't care how many times the paper uses the phrase and a strict technical definition of a topic is not necessary for a Wikipedia article. The essential requirement is that the paper is about the topic which I would argue it is. I don't know what FAA source you are referring to; my second source is the The Kang et al. source. This makes it clear that trusted time is key to their methodology and they repeatedly discuss trusted time servers. Which are trusted time sources. Uncle G, I don't understand why I should be ashamed of offering a paper with "Position, Navigation, and Timing" in its title. The full title is "Time Source Options for Alternate Positioning Navigation and Timing". That's exactly what I said the paper was about; the importance of time sources in navigation. SpinningSpark 11:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The paper I referred to as FAA is "Time Source Options for Alternate Positioning Navigation and Timing (APNT)" - it's on the FAA website, and is your third reference. Sorry for not being clearer. Personally, I am not convinced these papers make a good case for the existence of this article. There are already pages on NTP and Time Servers and the timescales that they measure agains such as UTC and TAI. There are also pages on protocols that issue trusted timestamps and define exactly what a trusted timestamp means in this sense. You could propose a notion of trusted time that combined all these notions, but that would seem to count as original research. David Malone (talk)
          • The need for a trusted source of absolute time in navigation is nothing new. It goes all the way back to the story of longitude and chronometers – three centuries back. This is a subject whole libraries of stuff have been written about. Timing over internet is one solution discussed in the paper I provided, so there is at least some sourced overlap of the navigation and network time topics. So no, I don't agree that it is OR to treat them in the same article. SpinningSpark 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've never heard that called trusted time - that's UT0, UT1, UTC and their relationship to earth orientation. The issue there is mainly the accuracy of the time source, clock and time transfer, not trust. I have quite a number of books on the topic! I think we'll have to agree to differ and get some other opinions. David Malone (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There don't seem to be any (significant) sources for this concept. The closest perhaps is the Cao and Veitch article, and although there are numerous controlled and uncontrolled keywords and subjects that have been assigned to that article, "trusted time" is not among them. It looks to me like the article on ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard covers this nicely, and that we don't have sources for a stand-alone article. Lamona (talk) 03:27, 17 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! 22:03, 22 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) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This page has been tagged for NO SOURCES for a dozen years. There's a discussion above about sources, none of which have been applied to the page. None of the sources discussed seem to directly detail the subject. A reasonable search finds nothing substantive. This article may be about a notable subject but we have no sources from which to determine this. Failing ANY sourcing, delete. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 8 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Fulda

Andreas Fulda (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)

Potentially notable, but fails WP:NPROF. Possibly meets WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 03:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think Cunard may have misunderstood the usefulness of reviews and their relationship to WP:NAUTHOR? Reviews of an author's work do not need to contain biographical coverage - indeed, it would be very strange for an academic review to do so. However, it is also strange that an academic this frequently quoted in news media, etc, only has a handful of reviews for any of his three books. I'm the one who added the reviews to the article; when I first saw it, I was expecting to find a clear NAUTHOR pass since there were three books there, but they're pretty under-reviewed, and one of them isn't a monograph. I held off on voting either way at first because this looks very borderline. But on reflection, I don't think there is any clear purpose in deletion here: this is a borderline case that will almost certainly become more notable as time goes on, and the article is short but not in bad shape. I don't see a hugely compelling argument in either direction, really. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your analysis, Asilvering (talk · contribs). Striking my comment and supporting keep per WP:NAUTHOR, a guideline that I am not well-versed in. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't think this is an obvious WP:NAUTHOR pass either; but unlike many of the other guidelines, that one allows for significant coverage (or citation) of an author's work to count for notability, rather than significant coverage of the author themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep under WP:NAUTHOR, not WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and I don't think he passes NAUTHOR either. One of the reviews is for an article, not a book, which appears on the website of the same publisher which published the journal the article was in. So I would question the independence of that review. Onel5969 TT me 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which review are you talking about? I could try to resolve this but the only reviews I see are for books so I'm not sure what you mean. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st one. Yip, possibly a paid review or at the very a least conflict of interest. I think it probably makes it suspect at the very least and unreliable. scope_creepTalk 09:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm still lost. I only see reviews footnoted for the three books. It would be extremely unusual for someone to write a review for an article in any case. But I'm also laugh-sobbing at the idea that academics get paid to write reviews for books (books that you also, typically, do not get paid for writing). -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is too low a bar by any measure to satisfy WP:NPROF and GScholar isn't used for WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. A simple measure on GScholar to determine if he was notable, if he had more than five papers with more than 100 citations for NPROF. The only measure that counts here is the book reviews. NAUTHOR requires independent book reviews. There is one that is idependent, one is bit dodgy, and likely unreliable. If another review turned up, then it would be good start for notability, but it has not been found yet. I don't think it will. It seems to be be below borderline. scope_creepTalk 11:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Can you please link the exact review you're talking about for me, since I'm still at sea here? I think this might be a misunderstanding of how academic publishing works - editorial boards of journals are not terribly beholden to the publisher, and indeed academics don't often think of who the publisher even is for journals, at least in the humanities. (You do care when it comes to a book... usually. But as someone working for an academic press, I've been told (reasonably politely) to go to hell by an ed board before. It's the board and the peer reviewers who decide what gets published, much much more than the publisher.) But you may indeed be correct and be seeing something I've overlooked, in which case we should probably pull the review link entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st above. Both the book and review have been published, by the same publisher. It is not independent. scope_creepTalk 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in @Cunard's post? That's not the case. The review is in a Brill journal, and the book is published by Routledge. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 5 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 // 07:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are appearing on the same, not published by. So far they're is only one reliable reference. scope_creepTalk 09:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON. The best case appears to be through WP:NAUTHOR, as is unsurprising in what I believe to be a "book field". I see two solid reviews of authored works, one of an edited volume, and one review/interview on the New Books Network. I think that New Books Network is probably somewhat reliable (with usual caveats about interviews), but I don't think it's the kind of review discussed by WP:NAUTHOR; edited volumes are different from authored works. I'd like to see at least one more solid review of an authored work. Mentions in context of his work seem a little short of WP:GNG. I'm not seeing WP:NPROF, as others have discussed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The more academic profiles in Wikipedia, the more informitative Wikipedia is. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bosley John Bosley: They are articles not profiles. Don't use the word profiles, if you wish to remain on Wikipedia. Saying such a thing as that, makes me think that you undeclared paid editor. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...er...WP:AGF...check my edits dude - who would be paying me?...and for what? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The book reviews are enough for at least a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, and the Radio Free Asia "Concerns Grow" source has a six-paragraph section about him, which I think rises to the level of nontrivial coverage. More coverage is hard to find but in part that's because it's obscured by the many publications that are by him rather than about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of whether there's a confict between the journal and the book's publishers, which does not appear to have been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I find the focus of the deletionists here on independence of publishers and the reiteration of this focus in the relisting comment by User:Star Mississippi to be completely baffling. The article does not list any reviews that match the imagined descriptions of the deletionists here: there are no reviews of articles, and there are no reviews that have the same publisher as the thing they review. The article in its current state (unchanged since Feb.9) lists four book reviews: [17] published by New Books Network about a 264-Routledge book, [18] published by Brill about the same Routledge book, [19] published by U. Chicago Press about a 311-page Palgrave Macmillan book (edited), and [20] published by the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute about a 277-page Springer book. There is not even an apparent conflict of interest. In all four cases the publisher of the review and the publisher of the book are unrelated, and the page counts make it clear that the reviewed items are books and not mere articles. When asked for clarification on which review was meant, Onel only produced more unclearness: "Yip" (a name not used in any of these reviews), and "the first one" (of what ordering?) We cannot base a deletion discussion on made-up facts that do not match anything in the article or the rest of the world. Opinions based on these untruths should be discounted, just as we normally discount deletion opinions that are disconnected from our notability guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking purely to my statement, it didn't look like @Scope creep's query was answered. And note, NeverTry is a blocked editor so that conversation definitely needs input from established editors and Bosley's keep is not at all policy related. If I had closed, it might have been n/c, but I didn't feel confident in that standing, hence the relist. No harm in more time. Star Mississippi 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I'm wasn't sure if he is notable or not, hence the Afd rationale above. I think with four genuine reviews, the subject is likely notable. I tend to trust David Eppstein as he knows what he is talking about, in this instance. I originally looked at them and wasn't sure. Regarding the comment above, I don't think there was any attempt to make up facts, as that is the whole point of Afd, is to ferret them out and make them visible so they can discussed. Lastly Yip means Yes in British English. I thought originally the first review that was coied, but even with three others it would be more than enough. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. My concern was whether your question was answered. I haven't reviewed the sources as this is a complicated (in a good sense) discussion and I haven't had time to dive. If folks happy with this closing, happy to revert my relist. Star Mississippi 15:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi for what it's worth, I think your no-consensus instinct is sensible. There are more keep votes than delete votes, and once you cut through the confusion about the publishers the delete votes are pretty weak, but the keep votes don't have really strong arguments either, and it's been a pretty confusing AfD, as you say. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Liberty Holdings Limited. Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)  no consensus. 2001:448A:6000:FD1B:CDB2:749D:A344:C24D (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANLIB

STANLIB (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 has only 1st party sources; I can find nothing but listings in Google, DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but how do we know that unless there are third-party reliable references? Any links? HighKing++ 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more than enough sources in GNews at least confirming they exist, not sure how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are numerous articles in the financial press about Stanlib. Given the declining quality of Google search results means that we need to prefix our searches. The fact that South African journalism is in crisis means that many sources are now paywalled. Here are some mainstream sources (IOL is not paywalled and despite recent issues with its journalism, the group dates back to the 1800s, and was a WP:RS when most of these articles were written. A search for •

“Stanlib iol” gives us numerous results including: from 2021 [30]. From 2009 [31]. From 2018 [32]. From 2004 [33]. From 2015 (Bloomberg) [34]. 2006: [35]. 2004: [36]. 2012:[37]. Here’s coverage from News24: [38]. I’m on a mobile, but there are literally dozens of articles in WP:RS demonstrating its notability. Park3r (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we merge content that is not properly sourced?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like WP:NOTCLEANUP is being disregarded here. The subject of the article is notable, regardless of the sourcing. I have added numerous citations above from WP:RS demonstrating notability. Once notability is demonstrated, the AFD process should end and other mechanisms used to address sourcing and other issues with the article. Also WP:WORLDWIDE needs to be borne in mind.Park3r (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Slavs

Muslim Slavs (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 same as Eastern Orthodox Slavs and Orthodox Slavs, nothing more than a loose collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to imply an inherent connection between speakers of Slavic languages who just so happen to be Muslims. Thesmp (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - per nom rational - it's also highly prejudicial.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed that it's a general categorization just like the other two previously deleted. It doesn't even seem to be actually supported by the source phrasing as far as I could glean - the first three sources don't actually emphasize religion + Slavs, but religion + geolocation. Whatever is useful from the article text can be used to expand the Slavs#Religion section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Would much rather a complete rework based on religion and geographical region but I think that that is too large a task. Perhaps extract useful information into Slavs#Religion.Gusfriend (talk) 22:18, 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 redirect to Hajipur–Muzaffarpur–Samastipur–Barauni section. ✗plicit 01:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni–Samastipur–Muzaffarpur–Hajipur line

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

Unsourced one-liner. The Banner 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, ✗plicit 14:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per above, appears to be a duplicate. NemesisAT (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). I am closing this nomination which I started. My objections have been addressed, and no other delete/merge vote remains. Thank you to all who participated. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stormbringer

Stormbringer (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)

Fictional sword. I've prodded this with "No evidence this fictional object passes GNG/NFICTION." a while back, and User:Toughpigs deprodded it with WP:NEXIST: "Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain", "The 1960s: A Decade of Modern British Fiction". Unfortunately, a year+ later, the article still has next to zero when it comes to proving reception/significance of this object. Aside from one sentence in the lead, it's pure plot summary plus a mostly unreferenced and ORish "In popular culture" section. Sadly, I can't access the first book outside snippet view, even with Z-library. The snippets from Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain. don't suggest anything that goes beyond a plot summary (and there are many false hits, as in, the discussion of Stormbringer (novel), for example). The 1960s: A Decade of Modern British Fiction does have two sentences of analysis, but that's it, two sentences: By the time he came to the Elric stories with their central image of the semi-autonomous sword 'Stormbringer' Moorcock was able to invest this object, intrinsic to the plot and indigenous to the world represented in the text, with the necessary symbolic currency. It was meant to represent his frequently repeated theme 'how mankind's wish-fantasies can bring about the destruction of... part of mankind'". I am afraid that's just not enough to warrant keeping a stand-alone page for this niche fictional object. I suggest redirecting this to the titular novel, and the referenced single sentence of analysis that exists in the current article can be merged as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nuisance AfD Artw (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Elric of Melniboné - I am seeing no real reason for this to be split into a separate article from the main article on the character and series. The sources that discuss the sword are all doing so in a manner that discuss it as an element/aspect of the character of Elric and the overall themes of the books, rather than as a distinct entity with independent notability. When you remove the largely WP:ORish fluff that makes up the second half of the article, what is left should really be covered on the main article on the series and character as part of the overall discussion of the themes and influences. Rorshacma (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have stricken my above recommendation for Merging per the discussion and sources below. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you substitute the Eternal Champion for Elric, your statements would be more correct... But still insufficiently so. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I specifically suggested the article on the Elric series as the target, rather than the overall Eternal Champion, is that this article is very specifically on the Stormbringer incarnation of the "Black Sword". I'm not an expert on the series, but its my understanding that the specific "Stormbringer" incarnation of the Black Sword is something that is largely tied to Elric, and the other versions of the Eternal Champion all have their own Black Sword equivalent, but are still their own distinct incarnation of the weapon. If you are suggesting that this article could be renamed and revamped to cover the concept of the Black Sword as a whole, I can see the potential. But, if it is going to remain focused specifically on Elric's Stormbringer, it would be better covered on that main article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That seems like more of an argument for article expansion than a merge argument, TBH. Artw (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its more that I think that the sourced information that is currently in this article that is specifically on the Stormbringer as wielded by Elric should be included on the main Elric of Melniboné page rather than split out as its own article, hence the Merge argument. But that doesn't preclude there also being an article on the Black Sword as an overall concept. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's certainly a reasonable take on things... but which of us have the time to do that? Thus, it becomes a question of cleanup, merge, delete, or kick the can down the road, rather than any real meaningful improvement to move the encyclopedia forward. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I wonder if the Elric of Melniboné page needs a rewrite from 'a fictional character' to the 'series', like we did recently with Heechee (a fictional race) that following a recent AfD got rewritten into a much more encyclopedic and notable concept of the Heechee Saga. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no person or team keeping up Michael Moorcock's corpus. It's a mostly unusable shambles, and I neither have the time nor the dead tree sources to revise it, but it should be done, because the whole of the category deserves better than what it has here. The fact that you would even think about nominating Stormbringer for deletion speaks to how substandard our coverage is. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rorshacma In light of Stormbringer#Analysis, do you still think merge is best? I am considering withdrawing this nom if you concur. Interested editors may want to comment at Talk:Elric_of_Melniboné#Should_this_be_rewritten_into_an_article_about_the_"Eric_series"?. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator admits this nomination is based on the current state of the article, and hence fixable by regular editing. Stormbringer has been imitated in so many other media, this article is an "in popular culture" magnet. Having said that, a full scholar search is going to find plenty, but I don't have time to undertake one at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found a few that y'all can chew through. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And are they talking about the Sword, outside of a plot summary, or the book with the same name? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The book of the same name is one of eight-ish books in which Elric and Stormbringer have an 'it's complicated' relationship. I'm perfectly capable of bringing you things that aren't trivial or only about the book or the specific sword; have a bit more AGF. The title of the first paper I linked is "A Brief History of EPVIDS: Subjectivity and Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords" which should be a big clue that it's not talking about just any specific sword or plot, but about an entire class of fictional object of which Stormbringer is the most recognizable and popularly successful modern incarnation. Oh, here's one that talks about Stormbringer without mentioning it by name, too: [39] Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This all seems like a pretty convincing argument for a merge like Rorshacma suggested, although the target article needs to be rewritten into one about the series, with a reasonable plot summary which can discuss the relation between Elric and his sword. And in the reception we can have the two-three sentences of analysis we dug up, on the sword, since we haven't yet looked for coverage of Elric. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, no, the entire of EPVIDS may include Stormbringer as an archetype, but expands far beyond that. A merger to Elric does not make sense even within the Moorcock corpus, because other characters used/wielded it in various forms, but trying to create a new article on the concept of EPVIDS including Stormbringer might. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I doubt EPVIDS are notable, although if the term is used by more than one author, a section in magic sword would be good. My quick check suggests that the term has been used by just two authors (as far as scholarly sources go) so it is very much not notable IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sources review:
      • The first source (accessed through WP:LIBRARY) arguably is a WP:SIGCOV treatment of this. It does call the Stombringer the most influential of modern "Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords". However, most other mentions are in the plot context, or focus on Sword's relationship to Eric (which supports the idea of a merge). The most analytical, non-plot quote I found that is about the sword and not its wielder (Eric) is this: "Still, a weapon like Stormbringer reinforces liberal selfhood in a particularly concrete way. It carries a continuous external threat to personal autonomy, and it subverts a fully rational self-determination. Modern fantasy heroes, especially in epic fantasy, often rail against "destiny" or a prophecy, but such destinies and prophecies lack Stormbringer's sentient specificity."
      • The second source (also accessed through WP:LIBRARY) is not relevant, it only states that "Small narratives of such mo- ments occur throughout Michael Moorcock's dark Elric series; the protagonist's black sword, Stormbringer, drinks its victims' souls as they watch. It is telltale that the sword finally turns out to be a disguised version of Satan." and I am not sure if the second sentence relates to Stomrbinger or some other work discussed earlier in the text.
        The final words of the series are spoken by Stormbringer, after it had turned on Elric, drank his soul, and transformed into a humanoid shape in which to corrupt the newly re-created world, "Farewell, friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou." (which is from Memory, because Wikiquote, inexplicably, does not reproduce it) Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jclemens Damn, we need spoiler tags after all :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was able to access source three (simple CEEOL login worked). It mentions the topic once, I'd say in passing: "Tyrfingr’s influence on the folkloric trope of cursed magic swords possessing self-determination may be recognised in such medievalist fantasy re-imaginings as Stormbringer in Michael Moorcock’s Elric of Melniboné — the black sword sustaining its sickly owner at the cost of perpetually feeding it lives."
      • source four sadly is unavailable to me. If anyone figures out how to access, do let me know
      • source five is a blog, unreliable
      Anyway, I remain increasingly convinced that the topic has no stand-alone notability, but a merge to Elric of Melniboné is a sound idea. PS. Someone should consider adding some of this to magic sword... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piotrus: About source four, I see the whole publication simply on the page of the link. It has one paragraph where it features Strombringer as a magic item with its own intent, closing with the evaluation "these unique magical items are like technologies unleashed on the world that are agents in their own right." If it should not display for you, please ping me again and I'll copy/paraphrase more. Daranios (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you could, please do. Trying to access full text directs me to a log in page and I don't have the right credentials. I assume your institution has the subscription to this database - lucky :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piotrus: The paragraph says that Strombringer is a special type of magical item, also known from D&D, in that it has a will, goals (like devouring souls), personality and an alignment. Often "pulling Elric along", and is in struggle with him. And then the quoted comparison with technology. Daranios (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if you can add something to the article based on it, go ahead. Since I cannot see the content I have to trust you on this one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piotrus: Didn't really plan on investing more time here, but well, I've added what I've seen in that source. Daranios (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      One more on White Plume Mountain and Blackrazor, from the module's author: [40]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think in total with the sources present in the article and those already found there exists enough coverage to establish the notability of the topic. AfD is not clean-up, and the current state of the article is not the important point for a deletion decision. Daranios (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly notable and easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am highly skeptical of the notability claims of fictional swords, but the new sourcing provided in this AfD strikes me as persuasive. In particular, "A Brief History of EPVIDS: Subjectivity and Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords" is centrally organized around assessing the meaning of this particular fictional sword as a fictional sword (i.e., its real-world importance, not its in-narrative importance), explicitly stating a long-lasting influence that is also detectable in some of the imitations/adaptations mentioned in the "in pop culture" section of the article. It really does seem that this is a paradigmatic fictional sword which influenced its genre. The article would be much improved if the "description" section was substantially reduced, and half of the "in popular culture" section was converted to an "imitations and influence" section (e.g., the Game of Thrones example is a trivial pop culture reference, but the D&D Blackrazor is much more than that). Those improvements can be handled through normal editing and are not cause for deletion. The article is overall solid enough that WP:TNT does not apply. Because the importance of the sword lies in its impact on fantasy as a genre, I oppose a merge to the character Elric, and would consider the book series a more appropriate merge target if the final consensus is for a merge. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Convincing argumentation to keep in the discussion above. /Julle (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. The article has been improved to the point I no longer feel the need to consider deletion/merger. No other delete/merge vote remain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 20 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 delete under WP:G11 by admin Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Govardhan Dravyam App

Govardhan Dravyam 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 topic sourced only to Google Play and Instagram; previously rejected then moved to mainspace; returned to draft with some advice left for creator at their TP; However, then returned to main with little if any improvement. Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep gurme

Sandeep gurme (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)

References in English mainly only have passing mentions of the person in question. Seems to fail WP:BIO Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 12:38, 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. 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 [41]? --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: [42]. 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 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: [43]/[44], 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. [45] Just the name, nothing else about him. Newspapers.com shows results to sort through at [46] but apparently my account expired. I just went to the Wikipedia Library page [47] 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! 05:26, 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. 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! 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 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. 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: [[61]]. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_15&oldid=1073435370"