Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 21	May 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Pare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

End-to-end WP:PROMO case. Résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Hatchens (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Environment, and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, the article is wholly promotional. Golem08 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get 6 hits, most of the English ones look like advertorials, one in Hindi? that I can't read. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks and reads like a classic puff piece. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leadhome

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Africa. Hatchens (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am inclined to agree. While fairly well written and sourced, the sources don't actually assert notability and merely corroborate the prose in what is essentially a promotional article. All we know is that they exist but what have they done of note to warrant an article? Not a notable company in my opinion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company, with start-up coverage and announcement-based coverage of brand initiatives as the available references. A company going about its business, but, as Bungle says above, there is no indication why this firm would be of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fragrance and Flavours Association of India

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack neutrality as per WP:NPOV. Also, lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Hatchens (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. References are atrocious. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Kothari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G Fashion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:RSP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:UPE. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Hatchens (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Native Advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. 07:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Scope creep (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nominator and considering the huge UPE circle creating articles that obviously fails all notability guidelines. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus whether sourcing is sufficient, but nor is there consensus to delete. Star Mississippi 02:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mk Ultra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged for lacking notability since 2011. Mere association with John Vanderslice does not establish notability. Schierbecker (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and thank you Schierbecker for giving attention to taking out old trash. BD2412 T 05:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently available online sources: The existing SF Weekly article, Trouserpress, allmusic, allmusic. Not too bad for a 90s band. At the very least merge to John Vanderslice. No need for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouserpress article is a profile of Vanderslice that only talks about MK Ultra incidentally. Schierbecker (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per The SF article, two AllMusic reviews and the Trouserpress piece has three paragraphs about the band so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 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 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behrooz Astaneh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, at least per English sources. I am unable to do substantial WP:BEFORE in Farsi, however. The previous discussion reached no consensus because Astaneh was a co-editor on a journal of some importance, according to some previous editors opposed to deletion. The article as it stands is pure puffery and there is zero material in English to create anything beyond a one- or two-sentence stub, so I think this is worth revisiting.WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Iran. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is currently located in Canada, so you'd expect some WP:GNG or WP:PROF in the English language, but I find none. Looking at his LinkedIn profile, I see nothing there that would count towards notability. Article states he is at McMaster, but search of Faculty/Staff directory doesn't find him. https://directories.mcmaster.ca/faculty-staff/ — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A ton of hits in GScohlar, but the name seems common enough that I'm unsure if they're all about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folomanu Kulene

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - This same user has nominated every Tuvulu footballer for deletion (and a few other mostly Oceania countries). The fact is, the reason we can’t find coverage is that the only major news outlet, Fenui News, is not online (it has a Facebook page but that page only gives summaries). A proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc. If there is still no coverage there, then fine, delete. But unless you did such research you are literally wiping out a nation’s sporting history just because they don’t have good internet access, which is unacceptable. A redirect until further research is fine as long as we don’t just wipe out his page. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this article still fails WP:GNG. Please review. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. A proper WP:BEFORE involves going to a country's museums and libraries? Are you deliberately trying to be insulting? Ravenswing 00:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teoliga Fakailoga

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers as WP:ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A reliable source must be independent, AND reliable, AND provide significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards. Ravenswing 21:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells Planetarium

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not seem to have changed much since last deletion discussion, so the previous redirect should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Education, and Virginia. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was merge to James Madison University.

Previous discussions: 2015-07 (closed as merge to James Madison University)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks well-sourced enough. XavierItzm (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to add any of the sources to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrwhosetheboss

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason provided by the proposer. Skyshifter ^talk 01:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG? Yes, I do agree that he passes GNG, not unequivocally, but just barely. Now why don't you see if you can change your degree for how you determine notability?

...If you didn't understand my bars, I'm voting a Keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets GNG to an extent, and I did a small search for sources, there are some, so the article could probably be fixed up. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 10:06, 1 June 2022
Comment - After a few days of searching, I have also found multiple other sources about his work in addition to the ones I posted already. For starters, his 3D smartphone hologram video has been the subject of multiple RS, including The Daily Dot, CNBC, Motherboard (Vice), two Huffington Post articles, and even on Time magazine. I added the former two sources in the article a few days ago.

Various other videos of his have been used for analytical purposes regarding technology, such as in Insider, BGR, The Verge, and The Indian Express. Also, one of his videos explaining an Instagram mystery was also the subject of significant coverage as well in an article from UNILAD.

Finally, he won a Streamy Award in 2021 for the category of Technology, passing #2 of WP:WEBCRIT. I think Mrwhosetheboss definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The sources demonstrably show that he is a notable tech YouTuber whose videos have been showcased and described in multiple sources. I stand by my Keep vote. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article fails the notability guidelines. Also the sources mentioned above are just brief mentions and are not good at establishing notability per WP:REFBOMB. Sahaib (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage per above to meet GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 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. Star Mississippi 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Katenda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious REACH-Namibia seems to be a small denomination, with 14 churches. I amended the article to provide a link to the article on the denomination, but this proves to be a red-link. Possibly there is an article that I have not found. The consensus is that bishops of major denominations are notable per se. My question is whether a denomination of this size is large enough for its leader to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation led me to Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa, which has a section on Namibia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bishop over 14 churches is reasonably major span, but with a current tenure, we should be able to find online refs covering this somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New Era seems to quote him all the time, such as [1], which seems to support a prominent role. I'd encourage more eyes on the coverage he gets through Google News--I don't typically add 'weak' to a keep !vote, but the majority of his independent RS news coverage does seem to come from this one source. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bishops are generally notable per WP:CLERGY. Granted, this denomination is not in the Anglican Communion, but it employs a similar definition of "bishop". In any case, there is lots of coverage in Google News, including The Namibian [2][3][4] and AllAfrica.com [5] as well as the copious amount of coverage in New Era, as mentioned above. He's obviously a big deal in his country. St Anselm (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:RELIG/N ... The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. They are notable, simply due their status. And until that notability guideline is changed, that is what prevails. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
REACH-Namibia is not a 'major Christian denomination'.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per StAnselm this topic meets notability per WP:CLERGY. Worldsolarpower (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

René Campero

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Does not appear to have had any significant roles in any notable productions. Ploni (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Ploni (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khorasani Persians

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can see, none of the sources in the article mention anything about "Khorasani Persians". The article is a violation of WP:OR, with the context tantamounting to having articles such as "Californian Americans". - LouisAragon (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Iran. LouisAragon (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire body of the article is about the history of Greater Khorasan, not the "Khorasani Persians". –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Article can’t decide whether it is about the Persian inhabitants of the historical region of Khorasan, or just the parts of that area which are now in Iran. All the information is available elsewhere and better presented. Nwhyte (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep disagreeing with the nominator's claim that there is nothing called "Khorasani Persians". Google search reveals a number of results some of which seem reliable. Although the editor has a history of creating articles without solid references, if not kept, can be moved to draft as well. Nanpofira (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and not a valid topic. A Google search in English and in Farsi just brings up sources about Khorasan and I see nothing about a distinct ethnic or cultural group of Persians. Mccapra (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Golem08 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carey R. Dunne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not meet WP:ANYBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. Most of the coverage is focussed on the cases rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The clearest WP:GNG-point I've seen is [6] (which doesn't seem to be Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Bloomberg profiles). There's more than passing mentions on the individual at [7], [8] and [9]. [10] (NYLPI) may be independent enough to be interesting here, and there may be something WP:N+ in this WSJ [11] I haven't managed to read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm super surprised that this article would be targeted for deletion. Dunne has honors from various legal organizations; mainstream media has discussed his role in the Trump cases; and his colleagues, including Mark Pomerantz, have bio articles. Llmeyers (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't see any problems with the sources cited. Please identify ones with problems so we can edit!~~ Llmeyers (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/trump-probe-prosecutor-made-his-name-defending-wall-street-banks~~
~~This isn't a Bloomberg profile, it's an article by a journalist, Greg Farrell.~~ Llmeyers (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry, I'm seeing now that I misread the reason for why the article was proposed for deletion. But I still think @Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right, and that there is info on the individual, rather than only the cases he was involved with. [Also, of course it's going to focus on involvement in cases; he's a high-profile lawyer]. The page also includes discussion of his service for NY State and NYC Bar organizations. Llmeyers (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP: ANYBIO -- well-known or significant award or honor... please see Awards section on the article; there are several. Widely recognized contribution to Supreme Court cases on President Trump (see C-SPAN citations, see New York Times, etc). This is all extremely well-accounted for. Llmeyers (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find the Awards section convincing. They certainly don't have their own articles and seem similar to other awards given within the circles of a specific profession. As an analogy, many wines get awards, but few wines are actually notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Anachronist, I meant to slash my above comment as well. I went back to strikethrough a few things after I understood more about MrsSnoozyTurtle's reasoning. I explained my thoughts below in more depth. But overall I agree with you, that the Awards section of the article is not the most convincing for keeping it. It's more Dunne's role in the New State courts, his role as President of the NYC Bar Association, and so forth. Llmeyers (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to delete because of WP:1EVENT. I am not convinced the awards are notable, and if he hadn't been involved in the Trump case, I am skeptical he would merit an article. The relevant information could be merged into New York investigations of The Trump Organization. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :WP:1EVENT notes that in the case of a highly significant event where the individual's role is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I think Dunne certainly qualifies.
I also think having links to New York investigations of The Trump Organization is definitely important, but doesn't totally cover it. Dunne's colleague on the investigations, Mark Pomerantz, has an individual page which similarly includes his role in the Trump cases as well as his other work as a federal prosecutor.

Similarly, Dunne's page is not only relevant because of the Trump investigations. His work as a white collar criminal defender for Davis Polk is also notable –– as was the well-publicized murder trial of Lonnie Jones and his subsequent exoneration. That case was remanded by the Supreme Court of New York in 2006 and led not only to Jones's exoneration but also an order by the New York Court of Claims that the state pay Jones $1.8 million in compensation. [See info from National Registry of Exonerations here.] Llmeyers (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llmeyers Hi again! This is your first afd, so when it's done you will have learned some stuff about afd:s. 2 things: Only write keep once on a page like this. You don't have to strikethrough or anything, but remember that going forward. Also, "Mark Pomerantz has an article" is one of the weaker arguments you can make in this context, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there's one thing Wikipedians don't trust, it's Wikipedia. Which is for the good of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you... ack, learning a lot today! Sorry to clog the discussion page, everyone. Llmeyers (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: It seems that Dunne's presidency of the NYC Bar Association is really notable here, potentially just as important as his role in the Trump investigations. I think there's little reason he didn't have a page before the Trump investigations –– he certainly could have. Llmeyers (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle, can you describe any nonreliable sources used on the page? Vast majority of the page's citations come from reputable independent sources: Washington Post, WSJ, NY Times, C-SPAN, etc. Llmeyers (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llmeyers. The reliability of those sources isn't the question here, it's how they relate to the individual. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! If you read the articles, you'll see that some of them are not ONLY about the cases, per say, but focus on Dunne's background & professional history. This is also true for the articles that discuss Pomerantz and Dunne's resignation. Llmeyers (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my usual standards for lawyers. Past president of the largest city bar, partner in a major and notable firm, significant public service, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding these, per those standards: trying a notable case with its own article in Wikipedia; arguing more than one case before SCOTUS; service to major committees. Llmeyers (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ONEEVENT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Bearian's post. Llmeyers (talk) 13:49, 1 June 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. Despite improvements, I don't see an agreement that the article should be kept. ClaudineChionh if you want the article moved to user / draft space for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans Online

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a previously expired/deleted PRODded article. New version was created by a serial unreferenced article creator who doesn't respond to talk page messages. My prod was something like: Serves as a directory listing for a directory. I'm not seeing reliable secondary significant coverage elsewhere; brief mentions on Google Scholar and elsewhere. Further details: I prodded this one w/o realizing that it had been prodded/deleted previously. I don't recall whether I prodded the previous one (I suspect not) and I don't know whether the creator of this unsourced article created the previous one. I completed a BEFORE but didn't find anything in the significant-secondary-reliable happy place. The person who deprodded this time did it on the technicality of its having been recreated; that person noted that notability is not demonstrated; someone else removed all unsourced content. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or draftify) – AO is now "retired" but it is historically significant as the first major online news/commentary resource for the Anglican Communion. I didn't realise it didn't have a decent Wikipedia article and I'm willing to make a start on one. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it is now is still not close to a keep for me (notability not yet demonstrated; "first major online news/commentary resource" of various religious denominations and other groups doesn't suggest Wikipedia notability; most sources just point to Anglicans Online), but I wouldn't object to a draftification if you think you can improve it or to a redirect if you can think of a better place to cover this website/directory. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current nominator actually was the editor who prodded the earlier version; both were created by the same editor. The older one only had the organisation's website as source. The current article has been stubbed as unreferenced, so interested parties are referred to the longer version in the history. I didn't see notability but I'm always willing to be persuaded. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ClaudineChionh, that's much improved. I've been thinking this one over. The main thing that speaks to potential notability seems to be the foundation in 1994, when as I recall the nonacademic web was in its infancy, search engines were very spotty, and websites consisting solely lists of links like this one were a major way of navigating. The earliest non-university-based website of which I'm aware also dates to 1994. I don't know how many of the early ones are still live. Is there much published on the history of Christian-focused websites, or similar? I don't even know if there were earlier Christian newsgroups/bulletin boards/mailing lists. I do recall my university Christian Union tried to start an online Bible -- I learned to type by typing in Matthew -- but got made to take it down over copyright. That would have been significantly earlier than 1994, probably 1990 or 1991, back in the days when even from a UK university you could only send e-mail to the States overnight. I think what's needed is sources, and preferably not all from the Anglican Journal. There's a brief description in the New Statesman (Andrew Brown. "The Church ignorant INTERNET." New Statesman, 128, no. 4464, 29 Nov. 1999, p. 75) and a mention in The Times ("Online devotion: the church's growing faith in the web." Times, 24 Feb. 1999, p. 11), oh, and another excellent one in The Times that I'd missed (Ruth Gledhill. Debate over rise of Synod liberals rages on Internet. Saturday, Oct. 28, 1995 The Times 65410 p10). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, Espresso Addict. I've tried to make the creator's articles sink or swim for a few years now; maybe I should have suspected that they recreated an expired prod (and that it was one of my prods) when I saw a familiar article title, but to my knowledge they've never done that before, so I thought I was mistaken. Now we know. ~~~~DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more solid academic as well as news references in my brief literature search on the weekend but haven't been able to read them yet (I was preoccupied with an election). I doubt I'll be able to get to them before Thursday. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. As it is right now, I'm not seeing where it meets the criteria at WP:WEBCRIT. So far, other than the obituary of one of the people involved (fine to include, but it doesn't help notability), we've got 2 citations from Anglican Journal. One of them is only a page and I'm guessing that one doesn't cover the subject in-depth. The other one is 12 pages, but it only is used in the lead for describe what the website did and who worked on it. Maybe more details from that article could be fleshed out to communicate something other than it was a directory. Two articles from the same journal only count as one source per WP:SIGCO. But if you've got more, we look forward to seeing it on Thursday or after. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an online directory, not dissimilar to the Directory of the Catholic Church in each country. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on your rationale, Whiteguru; I'm not seeing how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is relevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a directory insofar as it gives a list of dioceses, churches erected, services available at said churches, community events and community services on offer. The website does this formally for each country where the Anglican communion is established. That is the function of a directory. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but (at least my reading is that) NOTDIRECTORY doesn't say we don't include directories, rather we are not a directory (of all things that exist). So Wikipedia should not list every Anglican (or Catholic, or whatever) website that's ever existed, but there's no reason it can't include a (notable) website whose primary function was to be a directory (especially one started in 1994, when search engines didn't work and such things were key to how people navigated). We have a whole category for directories. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not relevant here, its about wikipedia not being a directory itself, you can of course post articles about notable directorys. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine consensus as to whether the improvements are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTDIR doesn't apply, but GNG would. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page isn't a directory (so it passes), but it fails GNG. SWinxy (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whiteguru, you could update your deletion rationale if you see issues with notability, sourcing being primarily self-published, or some other issue to strengthen your vote. Maybe this will wrap up today/tomorrow or maybe it'll go on another week. ClaudineChionh has not updated the article or this page in some 2 weeks. Possibly got busy, but pinging. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39 yes – I had very little breathing space between election business and school getting very busy. I can't see myself getting back to this before the last week of June. If that's too far away, happy to draftify or move to userspace. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closer: If it is not delete (still my vote), I think draftifying (I'm not double-voting) is the next best option. At present, the article is not much improved, but the more that ClaudineChionh has access to could help a little. It is a waste of time to keep this open another ~3 weeks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. SWinxy (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. I am not inclined to update what I said earlier. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:11, 7 June 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!} 05:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brook McIlroy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. Sources suggest notability, so WP:DRAFTIFY might be appropriate here? MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More than enough hits in Canadian sources, showing at a minimum they exist. They've done much design work for Native Canadian buildings, but most seem to only be passing mentions of the firm. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinis Krauklis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG all sources I could find are trivial in nature, such as [12] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Latvia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HTI Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable apart from its subsidiaries. A quick Google search does not seem to indicate the significant media coverage needed for notability. Additionally, this whole page looks almost like a company webpage and thus promotional. It's been polluted by paid editors in the past. Firestar464 (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoola

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable , the company don't have good references AlexandruAAlu (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In-depth coverage Business Insider,CNBC, and Digiday. Not a great deal of sources to work with, however. I've taken a stab at removing irrelevant content and adding tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.95 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. You should take a read of the WP:ORGIND section and the bit about "Independent Content". None of these references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Business Insider reference is really a profile of one of the topic company's clients, with a small amount of information and quotes provided by the CEO of the topic company. There is no in-depth information about the company and no "Independent Content", fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The CNBC reference relies entirely on an Squawk Box interview and other quotes from the CEO, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Finally, this Digiday reference profiles a client first and then relies entirely no information provided by the CEO and the company, also fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the topic is a company, we require references that discuss the *company* in detail and the information must be provided by a source unaffiliated with the company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. CORPDEPTH requires in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) ORGIND requires "Independent Content".

"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - articles that simply regurgitate quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews and basic information and descriptions fail ORGIND.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company and topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft. Sources currently in the article do not support encyclopedic notability. It is possible such sources could be found or could develop, but the article as it stands does not meet the sctrictures of WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 02:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brajesh Kumar Tiwari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Citations are not yet impressive enough i.e., h-index is just 11. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my area but the citations deserve more analysis than just the h-index. There are two reviews (410,284) and two books (162,104), as well as what looks like a research paper (233) (all co-authored, but with 3 to 5 authors). Is this a particularly highly cited field? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict here the notability yardsticks are WP:NPROF/WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. And, the entity is failing in both. Besides that, his h-index at Scopus is just 2, which is directly influenced by the impact of certain citations (if not all). That's my take on this. But, I'm OK to follow the general consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree it might be too early in the subject's career. I'd like to see a date for the PhD, but it doesn't seem to be stated on his faculty page or CV. There's an odd mix of fields -- food science and banking -- which I've not seen before. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like what Espresso Addict said, the field of expertise is not clear even from his university profile. The year of doctorate is 2009 as per worldcat but appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Nanpofira (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NPROF , WP:GNG . h-index is too low.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CLAP (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references provided discuss the subject in any kind of depth-- all are passing mentions. Was not able to find significant coverage in published reliable indepdendent sources. Existence does not equal notability. If sources exist in Japanese, then they need to be demonstrated. A loose necktie (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Companies, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 19:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP with the present set of references. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV too. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable fails WP:NCORP Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Schoenfeld

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. See also Talk:Wayne Schoenfeld#COI tag (May 2022). – Ploni (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something seems "off" about this article. I had a look at some of the sourcing (not all) and the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, have zero record of him nor the author in their archives. The Los Angeles Times and others did not check out either. This might be a possible hoax or fake sources? I'll spend some time to look deeper into the sourcing before coming to any firm conclusions and !voting. Netherzone (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems apparent that this person does not meet our notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR, WP:NARTIST, nor WP:GNG. I searched the databases of the newspapers and other publications that supposedly had coverage, but most of them showed no mention of this person at all, or were simple name checks or calendar listings. The permanent collection claim is false, as this too was a name check that he was in a show not a permanent collection. His books are mostly self-published. A Google search reveals only social media, a few press releases and wikipedia mirrors, a Newspapers.com search shows no in-depth SIGCOV. The sourcing is dubious and the article seems to be a PR effort, and as mentioned in the nomination a COI creation, (possible UPE). Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if nothing else, for the blatant falsification of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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