Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 23	June 25 >

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Faiq

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

Refs are profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Iraq, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage appears to be enough for notability. Publications, career and awards provide further evidence. Alan Islas (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The refs are mostly hand-made profiles and interview, but she is a poet and published. Nomination withdrawn

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 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Támar

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

She appears to have worked with notable artists, but that alone is not enough to warrant her own article; and redirecting her article to ~~either Prince (musician) or~~ Destiny's Child (of which she was apparently an early member of) seems like a stretch. Speaking of the latter point, that information (as well as virtually all of the historical sections of the article) is unsourced and was added by IPs. (Speaking of that, I didn't notify anyone on a talk page because it doesn't appear that there are any regular editors for the article.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grammy nominee with coverage in independent reliable sources. What more do you want? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to "Beautiful, Loved and Blessed", that technically isn't her song; it's Prince featuring her. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - ~~As noted above she is not "Grammy nominated" because she was only a guest on someone else's nominated song, but she describes herself as such at every opportunity.~~ (EDIT: Maybe "Grammy nominated", see below.) She has performed professionally under at least four different names: Ashley Tamar, Ashley Tamar Davis, Tamar Davis, and simply Tamar, which probably has not helped her career. She also regularly exaggerates herself as an early member of Destiny's Child (false, she was in their predecessor group) and "protege" of Prince (false, she was a guest singer on that one song). Alas, after decades of self-aggrandizement and occasional achievements she has attracted a little in-depth media notice, including the two sources already in the article, plus these and a few others: [1], [2], [3]. Per WP policy on minor celebrities there seems to be enough to not delete the article, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement but we might be stuck with it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has a Grammy nomination and a list of professional acting credits with national tours. 2600:8803:B601:EA00:7D17:5FB1:9D85:DEE8 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Erpert and User:doomsdayer520. Let's look here at a list of nominees. What does it say? "Prince & Támar". Not just Prince. So if she is listed as a nominee isn't it safe to assume she actually is a nominee? Don't trust that list then try another one here. What does it say? "Prince & Támar". Not just Prince. So where are you getting the idea she was not nominated? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective is that it's a Prince song from a Prince album, listed in all retail sources and Prince directories as "featuring Tamar", so regardless of what the Grammy lists say, Tamar's nomination is tangential. But if that is enough to say that she was "nominated" for WP purposes then I won't fight it. However, note that my vote in this AfD is essentially the same as yours. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, I deleted all of the unsourced information from the article (which was, frankly, most of it). I wouldn't be against a redirect to Prince (musician) now though. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was nominated for a Grammy alongside Price. That in itself is significant enough to have her own page. I think the fact that she was a member of the group that became Destiny's Child is pretty relevant, too. She also has a fairly respectable acting/performing resume (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1483963/bio). This call for deletion feels like it stems from a personal beef with her. 2600:8803:B601:EA00:7D17:5FB1:9D85:DEE8 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think it's worth relisting this discussion once. But I have no idea what this artist has to do with politics or "personal beefs". We deal with articles like this one every day at AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Grammy Award nominee she passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't address the reasons for deletion, namely what the inclusion criteria are or how this list topic is notable. Sandstein 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian freedom fighters of India

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

First line, and only non-list part of this page states that it is an 'incomplete essay'. Also violates WP:NOTLIST as nothing more then a list with no context showing why its encyclopedic. WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 06:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful list of mainly blue links for history researchers. The topic is very likely to pass WP:LISTN in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a legitimate and potentially useful list. I would prefer it to be Christian campaigners for Indian independence or something like that, because most of them did not fight. The opening words "incomplete essay" were presumably intended as a tag. However, this is a list. Almost all the articles have links to bio articles, which is where the references should be. It would be better this a slightly longer intro - another couple of sentences, linking it better to the independence movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost passing WP:LISTN and most of the people mentioned have links to wiki bio pages Proton Dental (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no reason why intersection of person's religion and their activities in freedom struggle of India are relevant. The freedom struggle of India was not based on any religious. One may argue that formation of Pakistan was based on religious grounds and hence a religion+Pakistan formation subgroup may be notable. But that's not applicable with India. Until someone proves why this intersection is notable, this is just LISTCRUFT, no matter howmuchsoever blue linked entries it has. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I click on T. V. Thomas and find he was an atheist and also fought for communist rule, not freedom. Also some of these were just elected officials, they didn't doing any actual fighting, just writing letters and speaking out against things. Should be list of activists. Their religion didn't seem to have anything to do with any activities these people did. This list was mostly done by just one editor. Dream Focus 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Dharmadyaksha here. The premise of this list is flawed; there's no evidence this is treated as a notable topic; merely being filled with notable people doesn't satisfy LISTN, and to boot the actual organization appears critically flawed as "freedom fighters" doesn't properly describe many. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no clear inclusion criteria. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hinkle

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines failed to produce any WP:RS-compliant sourcing that contained significant coverage of the subject.

This was a contested PROD. The prod tag was removed with the comment: "A Chairman for the Libertarian Party - notable". My reply to this good faith argument is that that national party chairs are not considered inherently notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians/political figures. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources is needed to establish notability, and it is decidedly lacking here. Sal2100 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism, and California. Sal2100 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)sig[reply]
Delete. Chairmen of minor political parties' organizing committees are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist; they must be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, which hasn't happened here. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV due to lack of independent sources which address the subject "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Britain

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

No independent, long-standing notability outside of the Brexit referendum. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 17 June 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 23:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources in the article aren't sufficient to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Most of the coverage relates to a single stunt involving two of the group's members; the Guardian article offers slightly more substantial coverage of the group itself, but a single source isn't enough. I wasn't able to find any other coverage beyond passing mentions. It's possible a short section could be added to Vote Leave#Relationship with other groups and this redirected here, but inclusion criteria for that section aren't entirely clear to me and adding this there could cause other problems. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Atrocious referencing, very brief article, no website, little media coverage and it’s not even clear what the organisation was. GeekBurst (talk) 19:58, 26 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Building the Virginian Railway

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

This isn't really an encyclopedia article, it's a personal essay in article space. Created in 2005 with zero inline citations, it remains essentially unchanged today. Much of this article simply duplicates Virginian Railway, and what doesn't is often more like a personal essay. Consider lines like:

"Gambling on that premise, the two big railroads saw to it that the "negotiations" were always unproductive, and Col. Page always declined to indicate the source of his apparently "deep pockets." By this time, Page must surely have been enjoying his newfound power in dealing with the arrogant big railroads. In fact, management of the funding Rogers was providing was handled by Boston financier Godfrey M. Hyams, with whom he had also worked on the Anaconda Company, and many other natural resource projects."
"If Col. Page and his Deepwater Railway scheme had met with an unpleasant surprise, as it turned out, the big railroads were in for an even bigger one. Page didn't give up his scheme, as most surely must have been anticipated. Instead, he stubbornly continued building his short-line railroad through some of the most rugged terrain of the Mountain State, to the increasing puzzlement of the leaders of the big railroads. They were unaware that one of Page's investors (who were silent partners in the venture) was the powerful Rogers. Henry Rogers was an old hand at mineral and transportation development, and his projects and investments seldom failed. His tenacity, energy, and organizational skills had led him to become one of John D. Rockefeller's key men at the Standard Oil Trust. Always ready to do corporate battle, Rogers wasn't about to have the Deepwater investment foiled by the big railroads."

The article goes off on a huge tangent about Booker T Washingtion which, while interesting trivia, is not relevant to the article's subject at all. There could potentially be a notable subject here, but what exists is so far from an encyclopedia article it merits deletion and starting over (at a title that doesn't sound like a self-published book written by a railfan. I suggest "Construction of the Virginian Railway"). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Virginia, and West Virginia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, how did this survive for so long in this condition? It's clearly a personally invested essay pusning one editor's synthesis. The main article already covers the main points. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary content fork that is full of synthesis and essay-type prose. Even if there were enough content to break this section out into its own article, this would be a WP:TNT situation anyway, due to the writing style and haphazard/nonexistent inline referencing style. Likewise, there is nothing sourced that is worth backmerging, as far as I can tell. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A relic of a bygone era. That wouldn't (and didn't) stand out as a problem in 2006, but it was never really revisited and brought up to current standards. Also, the primary author sadly passed away in 2011. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mackensen. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wikipedia has many of these early articles that are too long to be bunk, but unsourced so reliability can't be verified. I'd recommend either deleting it or draftifying until the proper inline citations can be created. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Panama

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

Yet another barely-sourced list in utter failure of WP:SALAT. The sources are just a bunch of stamp catalogs that may or may not be accessible. As with all these other lists, there is a rapidly growing consensus: even if we can verify that every single one of these people is on the postage stamps named, there is zero evidence of a source that proves the topic of them being on stamps is notable in its own right. I've seen some cleanup, but no attempt to dig for better sources, and my own WP:BEFORE on GBooks found nothing relevant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Panama. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another lists that lacks the sourcing to show it meets our criteria for lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another of these postage stamp articles that fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 28 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. MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Bible Christian School

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

While the school is closed, it existed during the internet era during which sourcing should be online. What I have found is limited to directories of christian schools (such as this and review sites. Nothing in depth.

I can find no evidence this school meets notability requirements. Joshua Henry was an alumnus, but that is a passing mention of the school and there are a handful of others, but notable alumni don't confer it upton the school. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Florida. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a lot of coverage for its baseball team.[4][5][6][7][8] St Anselm (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We normally allow articles on High Schools to exist. Notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that for public schools as coverage seems more likely to exist, but less so for K-12 private/religious schools. Notability isn't temporary, but in this case I can't find evidence it ever attained it. Star Mississippi 03:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, High schools have not had any presumption of notability for 4 years. A public or not for profit private school must meet meet GNG; a for profit school must meet NCORP like any other business. And although notability isn't temporary, a change in our standards for notability are generally treated retroactively. 174.212.227.246 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a thorough BEFORE on this and PROD'ed the article. The baseball team story is tangential, and the only thing that really shows up. As far as notability not being temporary, that guideline states "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article." That is the case with secondary schools. They once got a free pass if they existed, but by consensus must now pass GNG or NCORP in order to be considered WP:N. This school doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV required.Jacona (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is no evidence of notability by Google search. Nonetheless, public schools should have notability unlike private school that must attain media coverage.Gartuwaso (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a private school.... Jacona (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No any evidence of notability. It's a private school and has no any independent source. Gingie11 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Coverage of the school's baseball team is not transferable to the school itself as notability is not inherited. Futher local coverage of school sports is WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's nothing here that addresses the topic of the school itself "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't about transferring notability at all. The baseball team is part of the school. If the baseball team is notable, then the school is notable. St Anselm (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:ROUTINE specifically mentions sports matches as routine coverage. School athletics is covered in local press as a matter of course, and there is a reason why we have that specifically under that guideline. Further, that coverage does not address the topic of the school itself (it's history and notability as a school), which is supposed to be the primary subject of this article. One would assume the primary purpose of this school is to educate its students in academic subjects, not athletics, yet we have no SIGCOV of the institutions primary purpose or its history as an organization.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dariche Asemani

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

If this were a topic subject to CSD A7, I think it would otherwise meet the criteria. No assertion of notability, no independent source cited. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Existing sources are the app website and Wikidata (????), web search didn't turn up anything else. Just not notable. Ravensfire (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not a singles independent (or even reliable) source covering the subject. BTW, It's a cross-wiki spam. --Jeeputer (talk) 23:05, 1 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion

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

Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS too. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. BilCat (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER story, no changes in procedures, no lasting effects, no injuries or deaths, no hull loss - just a curiosity in effect. - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable about this incident per WP:AIRCRASH. This incident was not fatal to humans, did not result in a hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport, and did not result in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is not an event worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. No lasting impact or other notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:30, 29 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soumendu Lahiri

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}}.

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

I don't see the person received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or honor (recognition from the governor of West Bengal isn't a significant honor, they frequently gives this type of honor). The person's works hasn't become a significant monument, won significant critical attention. Full of self references, looks like created by someone close. Article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article has been deleted from Bengali Wikipedia. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also Note that @আফতাবুজ্জামান is an administrator of Bengali Wikipedia . Tbengalieditor > Talk 02:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to your statement you told that, "Recognition from the hon'ble Governor of West Bengal isn't a significant honor , they frequently gives this type of honor" . But as per my knowledge is concerned I do know that the honors about which you are speaking about is also given frequently to the respected persons.

But the recognition from the hon'ble Governor of West Bengal, India is not "this type of honor" as per your statement. It is a prestigious honor which is not given to everyone and frequently.

I think you're trying to diminish the value of this prestigious recognition. Tbengalieditor (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A mere "Recognition" is not a significant honor, not same as e.g. Bankim Puraskar, Sahitya Akademi Award etc. Here a teacher from West Bengal got a "Recognition" from Governor of Jharkhand for writing a book, should we create an article about this person? This type of honor/recognition are frequently given, we should not keep this article just because of this. The article was deleted last year with clear consensus. Since then nothing has been changed. No significant coverage, no in-depth coverage. Nothing in Bengali either.

Pinging participant from last afd @Theroadislong, CommanderWaterford, Nomadicghumakkad, Umakant Bhalerao, AniksDutta, David notMD, Whiteguru, Atlanticatticus, and RandomCanadian: --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per your statement that the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor is frequently given, can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from the Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?

If the person from West Bengal who has got recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of Jharkhand for his literary work, has written independent books and his literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers, and articles on his name have also been published on newspapers, then obviously the person should have an wiki article.

Soumendu Lahiri has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology. Name of some books are added in the bibiliography section of the article with their ISBN No. His literary works and biography have been published on some popular newspapers of West Bengal like- Anandabazar Patrika , Puber Kalom etc. Regards,-- Tbengalieditor (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers", "has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology", has "ISBN" doesn't mean they are automatically notable. That's not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise you can create articles about every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper. Every writer who wrote some books. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying at first that ' "Literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers", "has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology", has "ISBN" doesn't mean they are automatically notable.' . On other hand you're saying ''That's not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'' It means you're focusing on significant coverage in reliable sources after ignoring them. You are accepting the truth in a different way which (The Truth) I said clearly earlier.

Every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper writes on newspaper but generally they do not become the subject of the news or article ; that is why except on notable persons one should not create wiki article on them (Every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper).

As per wiki norms if an author has some independent books (It wil be more helpful if there is ISBN) , he has become the subject of a news article or has recieved a special honor etc. then he is notable (wiki-lawfully but not "automatically"). Please See WP:GNG

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Please check the reference section of the article Soumendu Lahiri. There are multiple significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Respected Sir, you have not answered my question yet - "Can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?" As you have told that the honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is frequently given. Regards -- Tbengalieditor (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving significant coverage doesn't mean publishing your work on a newspaper, It means someone wrote about you/your work, and not just 1-2 line. Also it has to be in a reliable sources and independent of the subject. I failed to see those in the article, most of them are unreliable, self source, primary, or passing mentions. I already reviewed references section and that's why i started this afd. Wait for others to comment, if they think reference are reliable, not self source, not primary, or not passing mentions, article will be kept. You don't have to worry, i am not destroying your article. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir, You have said, "... I failed to see those in the article, most of them are unreliable...". But please permit me to mention here that he has been the subject in news articles in depth and his works have been published on newspapers which have wikipedia page like- Puber Kalom, Anandabazar Patrika.

Is it not a significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject ? Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Publishing you're work on Puber Kalom, Anandabazar Patrika doesn't mean you're automatically notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান Not only works, But also Biography in depth on renowned newspapers. Regards--- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. a poem, primary, written by subject himself

2. interview, primary, unreliable source

3. written by subject himself

4. unreliable source

5. Written by his son, primary

6. unreliable + passing mention

7. passing mention

8. primary/unreliable

9. passing mention + unreliable source

10-12. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself

13. unreliable source + passing mention

14-18. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself

19. unreliable source + passing mention

20-27. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself

28-30. unreliable source

31. passing mention

33-40. unreliable source

41-43. passing mention + unreliable source

IMO, Article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, but wait for others to comment, if they think references OK, article will be kept. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Widely circulated and renowned newspapers published from West Bengal of India, which have own wikipedia pages like- Anandabazar Patrika, Puber Kalom from which his works and articles have been published and you're saying these are not reliable sources. On the other hand The Honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is mere a puppet to you as you told previously - "A mere "Recognition" is not a significant honor,...". But you're failed to show as well as trying to avoid my question , "Can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?" As you have told that the honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is frequently given.

Lahiri has written four independent books and worked in many collective anthology which have ISBN, which also has no importance to you.

Whenever I'm talking about major points, you're misleading the conversation. Let the respected administrators come , they will decide whether the article will be kept or not. Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubt about Puber Kalom. It's more about what type of coverage. 1-2 lines or passing mention on Anandabazar is not significant coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, his biography was published on Puber Kalom in depth along with other newspapers which have R.N.I No.(Government of India).

and above all he got recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal, India. With Best Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should stop, there is no point repeating above discussion again. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbengalieditor, Q: Do have any connection with the subject? If not, how did you took this photo? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe the reason why this article should not be kept. Has it any proper reason? or it is just a reflection of any influence as you are from bengali wikipedia & the person who nominated this page for deletion is an administrator of bengali wikipedia. Regards --- Tbengalieditor > Talk 19:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should notice this or this before accusing me that i am influencing someone. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think before you tell anyone, there's already a lot of discussion about the source, i don't see a good reason to bring them back here. —MdsShakil (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more consideration of the sources from other editors who frequent AFD with more substantial feedback than "per nom". The discussion has to go beyond nominator vs. page creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source analysis by আফতাবুজ্জামান shows that WP:ANYBIO is not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle After Delete there will be a ":" which you have not written.

& Point to be noted, page history clearly shows that you had added fanpov tag before this AFD started. But at that time you didn’t tagged this page for deletion. What makes you compelled to do that so? Regards ---

What makes you compell to do that so? Tbengalieditor > Talk 02:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I haven't, but hopefully that doesn't make my !vote invalid :)

There has already been too much dubious behaviour here, so I request that we just focus on the sources and Wikipedia's policies from now on please. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This article Passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR.God choise (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC) — God choise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not sure how article passes ANYBIO, AUTHOR if subject doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per the cogent source analysis by আফতাবুজ্জামান. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. Please salt this so that it has to go to draft if it's re-created a third time.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 2 July 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hurdy Gurdy

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

despite having songs appear with others on shows and films, i don't see any coverage of Gurdy herself that would warrant an article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citations provided in this article show that there is coverage of Gurdy. She is/has been a member of multiple music groups and has preformed with multiple notable acts in her career. She has also established a successful solo career. Additionally, this article is also available in German: Annie Hurdy Gurdy: German Version. Catsandgurdies (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Annie Hurdy Gurdy has a sufficient amount of content and citations to be an adequate article. As for whether the subject of this article is notable enough to have an article, it seems that she is, based on what information and citations are provided. The recent addition of the section Reception was a good addition to this article. If there are further concerns, anyone could request that this article be returned to a draft so that it may be developed further, rather than removed. Mothswallow (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)— Mothswallow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck Mothswallow's !vote as a confirmed sock of Catsandgurdies.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears WP:TOOSOON for this article to be sufficiently supported per WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC by independent and reliable sources. For example, sources in the article include The ProgSpace, which appears to be a promotional blog, Folk N' Metal, which appears similar, as does Mythologica, and there is a source that is essentially an advertisement. "Legendary online magazine" Kurgan Compass announces her tour with a band, and announces a new song with one line of secondary commentary, and there is a report by Dextero about her viral TikTok performance of video game music, without context about her or her career. I have not found better sourcing in an online search. Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beccaynr. I agree with her source analysis with the exception of the folknrock website which has editorial oversight over staff writers (Jeff Goble is the chief editor) and as such would likely pass a source review as RS. However, this is just one source and we need three quality independent sources to prove notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 2 July 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. Fee free to create a redirect from this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Road, Melbourne

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

I am unable to find any secondary sources covering the road itself, with my searches only turning up results for the Great South Road. I wasn't able to find an internal page that would be a suitable target for a redirect, so deletion seems appropriate for failure to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saw this in NPP myself yesterday and thought it looked non-notable, but decided to defer to a more experienced reviewer. A number of similar articles have been deleted recently for the same reasons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dingley Arterial Project, one of the components of this project involves the South Road extension. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:36, 29 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 speedy keep. Nom withdrawn, no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique De Jongh Caula

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, Engineering, and Cuba. Ploni (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His claim to notability would presumably be as a member of the Cuban Academy of Sciences, see the first ref, from their site. Criterion 3 of WP:PROF is "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)". But he isn't listed as one of the 252 current members. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: Figured it out—it seems he died a few years ago and the article wasn't updated ([9]). I'll go ahead and withdraw the nomination! –Ploni (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I did wonder about that. How many more living dead bios do we have I wonder - all those sports people! Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 26 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 redirect to Merseyside Skeptics Society#Skeptics with a K. Information about the podcast is in the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptics with a K

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. All the sources are podcasts, blogs, youtube, and other self-published, primary, or unreliable sources. I looked for more sources and found nothing. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Science, Websites, and England. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidently, many of the references are clearly RS, and the article has been awarded C-Class quality by both Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism for this reason. RS: Metro (British newspaper), BBC Radio Oxford, BBC Radio 5 Live, BBC Radio Merseyside, BBC Radio 4, sv:UR Samtiden (Swedish television programme), New Scientist, Radio City Talk, Liverpool Echo etc. It could be argued that some of the self-published sources should be removed, but there is little doubt that the subject passes GNG and WEBCRIT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps give a few examples of reliable sources used to support the article, because I cant see them. Your list of broadcasters above seems to be unrelated to the point you are trying to make. Thanks. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the References section or use ctrl+F and you'll find all of them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did my due diligence before commenting above, no need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. The sources extant are pathetic, and per the nominater, do not pass GNG or WEBCRIT. I cannot understand how you came to such a conclusion. Your list of media sources are not sources for this article, but simply links to their respective articles. The project assessments too are poor, bearing in mind the assessment criteria for RS content. C-Class is way too good. The refs are in fact self-serving refs to the podcast or the parent organisation, which cannot be used to establish notability. Please could you actually show which refs you consider establish notability, rather than brush off my concerns like you did. thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References (current version):

1,3,5,6,7,8a,14a,15,17a,18b,19a,20,21b,22a-f,23,24 self-published, non-independent (podcast itself)
2, non-independent (website)
8b,11,14d,16,18a,19b,25c,27 self-published (blog)
8c,9,10,12,13a,13b,14b,14c,21a self-published (podcast)
25a self-published (YouTube)
4,17b,25b?,25d (perhaps) qualifying source but not about subject
26 can't access/unclear

Even the best of these aren't really about the subject - as an example, the BBC cite (25d) is simply introducing an interviewee by saying the guest "also writes the blog Skeptics with a K," which is not the kind of thing that confers notability. I'm not seeing any WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No conclusion can be drawn based on C-class assessments. For most project, C-class represents the absolute bare minimum of having references, appropriate structure, and general coherence. Further, it is not 'awarded' by a project, but rather by a single editor of unknown expertise (and the first assessment given is usually used to populate the entire set, rather than separate assessments being performed for each project). A C-class assessment is no indication of notability. Agricolae (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this fails GNG, no demonstration of NOTABILITY at all. TNT required, and I dont even think a redirect is necessary to the parent article, which adequately covers this subject in a single paragraph. -Roxy the correctly spelled sceptic. wooF 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see merge/redirect being viable here either. I don't see anything in the sources that would confer WP:GNG or any sort of independent WP:DUE mention, and the comments at this AfD about sources "somehow" reaching that point appears to be hand-waving. KoA (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete lack of WP:RS to document anything more than mere existence. I would recommend redirect to Merseyside Skeptics Society but the coverage of the blog there suffers from the same sourcing problems. Agricolae (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merseyside Skeptics Society#Skeptics with a K where it has its own segment as an WP:ATD. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. Nederlandse failed to analyze the sources in the article. SBKSPP (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Silja Line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harri Hylje

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

i'm not sure how a standalone article on a company's seal/logo is notable or encyclopedic in this case - it doesn't appear to have significant in depth coverage in rs in any language and what little can be sourced can probably just be placed in the company's article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silja Line. There's some coverage, but niche/unreliable (at least one cited source boldy declares itself to be a press release). There's room in the target article to absorb this. -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Advertising. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Silja Line, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but it would probably be good to have Estonian/Finnish input to see if it has any real merit (I see there is an article at Finnish Wiki). Advertising characters can go on to have multifaceted careers, but the test would be whether it has any meaningful reference away from the ferry company, as others in the category 'Advertising characters' presumably have. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A close parallel exists in the case of Ville Viking and Viking Line, but there I have simply proposed a merger. Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. I'm not seeing any meaningful coverage in Finnish media. Fi.wp cites mostly non-independent sources. There are two Markkinointi & Mainonta stories, but I've always felt a bit iffy about how independent that magazine can actually be seen as. The vibes I'm getting is more along the lines of "glorified press releases/marketing" rather than proper journalistic content. In any case, the stories are not much either: [10] ("we made a new logo which is no longer smiling"), [11] ("there's an interactive screen with the mascot on it on one tram stop"). Ljleppan (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. The substance of this article comes from press releases and other inappropriate sources. There is a compromise to merge and there might be enough reliable material to preserve after someone removes the marketing/PR stuff. Jontesta (talk) 01:40, 28 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Amir-Arjomand

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Museums and libraries, and Iran. Ploni (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Textbook fail. Tjczzo (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning~~ Keep - a source in the article, Eminent Persians: The Men and Women who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979 : in Two Volumes, Syracuse University Press at pp. 167 and 838, and sources, e.g. A Tribute to the Legacy and Vision of Lily Amir Arjomand and Kanoon (Asia Society, April 2022), Iranian Women you Should Know: Lily Amir-Arjomand (IranWire, 2015), and via ProQuest: "SIL THEMES: GLOBAL GROWTH, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT" (Women's Wear Daily, 2007, quoting "Lily Amir Arjomand, general merchandise manager for Saks in Dubai"), "Saks buyer 'astonished' at Indian design talent" (Hindustan Times, 2006, same extensively, also stating, "Arjomand is an American who lived in the US for 27 years before moving to Dubai two years ago. She left Iran after the 1979 revolution and began working for Saks Fifth Avenue 17 years ago.") support WP:BASIC notability and indicate the article can be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per a UNESCO publication, Made to Measure: Children's Books in Developing Countries (1980), p. 89, "Under the leadership of Lily Amir - Arjomand, the Institute for Intellectual Development of Children and Young People built and operated a system of some 300 libraries, reading centres and mobile units throughout Iran."; and from "Comparative & International Library Science" (Scarecrow Press, 1977) at p. 106 "As she developed the children's libraries and cultural centers run by her Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults, Lily Amir - Arjomand was most strongly influenced by her Rutgers library science work under Mary Gaver." In International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Librarianship (Greenwood Press, 1981), "The children's public system lost Lily Amir - Arjomand , who was the founder of the system" is noted at p. 136. Beccaynr (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on sources found by Beccaynr. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the evidence provided by Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that have come to light over the course of this AfD, particularly from Beccanyr. The article may not be that great, but it could be improved very well from what we have here. jp×g 05:20, 4 July 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. Consensus that the article needs some cleanup, but WP:DINC. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Naver

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

Non-notable Loch. All references are just links to online maps, etc. with nothing supporting notability. Singularity42 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But the Loch is Notable, and the sources have information. Especially under the Fishing Section. It is like Loch Urigilll or Loch Borollan or Loch Rimsdale or Loch Hope or Loch Brora, why didn't they ever get proposed for deletion, they're smaller, more remote and are less important that Loch Naver? I don't understand. N1TH Music (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to be a resonably sized lake and there seems to be coverage[12][13]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tidy. Loch exists, is large enough and seems notable enough. However the article needs a real clean up, removal of inappropriate references and I'd love to know where all these settlements around it are as only Alltnaharra seems to actually exist. Canterbury Tail talk 23:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OS Cites all 4 as existing as does Canmore and others, particularly Klibreck which is cited by all maps I found. Also Ben Klibreck exists N1TH Music (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but even on the OS maps I cannot find any settlements by the name of Redhackaistelll and Dailmallhart situated on the loch. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail here on second thought it is a map and might not be reliable but it's still produced by OS. Also I think you spelled Reidhachaisteil wrong or maybe I did because if I search it up I get many results including a source from Canmore which I think we can all agree is reliable. N1TH Music (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a dead abandoned settlement of a few houses, not an active settlement. No one lives there, so they're not settlements. Don't you see how much of this is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS to reach the wrong conclusion? Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail I understand the part about how a dead settlement maybe shouldn't be listed in the settlements section, even though my judgement was if the place is or was populated than it counts, but I was probably wrong. But honestly, no I don't see how this is "Original Research" OS and Canmore both show me these localities or abandoned settlements or whatever they are called and I label them as settlements. The OS map writes them in a kind of text they would use for settlements and so does the map Canmore provides. Additionally the Canmore map (Which is an edition of OS) Lists places such as "Gravel Pits" "Sheepfolds" and other things I would associate with active settlements there. However if you remain certain that these do not classify as settlements that nobody has any issue with removing them from the list. N1TH Music (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something which has hitherto not been mentioned regarding issues of active or abandoned settlements is that the population of this area was impacted by the events of the Sutherland Clearances two hundred years ago. For example, "Soon afterwards Sellar went to Achness, near the eastern end of Loch Naver, and gave formal notice to quit to some of the tenants on his land." [14] AllyD (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: This article was brought to AfD less than 15 minutes after it was created? I am not sure how much WP:BEFORE was done in that time, but that could have identified existing coverage such as the article (albeit brief) in the Gazetteer for Scotland. As things stand, it is a bit of a mess, with the article creator having responded by moving it to draft, and neither the draft nor the redirect carrying this AfD notification. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the history of use of the Loch, see also the summary in Groome's 19th century Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland [15] and the Canmore entry on the Grummore Broch: "This broch ... occupies a short, flat, projecting point of low ground on the north shore of Loch Naver ... On the low, fertile ground around the shores of Loch Naver stand many modern farms as well as two more brochs on the opposite shore." [16]. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little WP:AGF re WP:BEFORE, please?

. I saw the article shortly after it was created as I was doing NPP at the time. There were approximately 50 or so links in the article in its original version. I went through them, and from what I could tell they were either just maps of the area or references to places nearby. By that point there had been no additional content to the references (the additional references added were after I tagged it for AfD yesterday). My logic was given the creator was able to add 50+ links to the article but couldn't find anything that actually supported notability, then they likely didn't exist or could not be easily located (I didn't know about the CIR issues raised at ANI at the time). Anyway, given there are better sources, I have no objection to the article staying with a major clean up. Singularity42 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we recently have a discussion somewhere that resulted in the disallowing of moving an article to draft space while it is at AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back from draft. Jay (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a bad practice to send a 14 minute old article to AFD. There are many alternative to automatic deletion and this is highly discouraging to content creators. It would have been better to open a conversation with the page creator rather trying to delete an article as soon as it has been created. The page creator was incorrect to move a page involved in an AFD discussion to Draft space but that could have been a move you made rather than advocating immediate deletion for a new article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 29 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tse Ka Kui

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

Promotional, appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Hong Kong. Ploni (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it. I was forced by my then Boss, i.e. the very title of the article, to create a series of pages to promote his name. I genuinely think he does NOT deserve a wikipage of his own. PLEASE do delete it. Thank you. 119.247.237.33 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage about him in my searches for sources. Tse Ka Kui (traditional Chinese: 謝家駒; simplified Chinese: 谢家驹) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Heah

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

Promotional article for subject that fails WP:NACADEMIC. – Ploni (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Malaysia. Ploni (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did all the normal searches and have concluded that she is not notable. CT55555 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't pass WP:NPROF, but there's a chance might pass WP:NAUTHOR if significant independant reviews are found (I haven't looked, hence this is not a !vote). -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found and added to the article two reviews for one book. I don't think it's quite enough for WP:AUTHOR, but if reviews of other books could be found I could change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 26 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) --VersaceSpace 🌃 20:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford's Biscuits

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

Sources appear to a blog, multiple postal directories, one reference to the Daily Mail but with zero way to go verify, and another blog. valereee (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. valereee (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in [17] the A-Z of Leath, Secret Leath and to a lesser extent Export Planning. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements and potential for further improvement. Artw (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a few more reliable sources. It's a slight mystery how such a well-known company should have such a flakily-sourced article, as plenty of reliable materials are available. However, notability, as nom should certainly know well, depends on what exists in the world, not on what has been thrown together in the article. This company is beyond doubt notable, as a quick "before" search would have established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was reeling in horror when I saw this nomination. A nation’s grandmothers subsisted on Crawfords biscuits for decades!! A quick search found sources at 1, 2, and 3 as well as many other snippets I can’t view. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is sufficient as established by references. Coldupnorth (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While in no way connected to United Biscuits, I must disclose that yesterday I did eat an entire pack of custard creams as a result of this discussion and subsequent edits. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Crawfords was a major brand in Scotland for many years, As said above the sources in the article may not have been great, but there will be others out there and it is clearly notable. Dunarc (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think this is a snow keep (flood of custard cream topping, or something), if anyone would like to do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is much improved Melissa Highton (talk) 17:14, 28 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 redirect to List of philatelic libraries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philas Library

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

Non-notable place with one source about donations. Gabe114 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Australia. Gabe114 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews, and passing mentions in gbooks. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of philatelic libraries per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 4meter4. Cabrils (talk) 23:05, 1 July 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) Tow (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senegalese people in Sweden

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

Unclear to me if this meets notability criteria Tow (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page needs to be deleted at all. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found Statistics Sweden, and that's where I got the information from. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this page meets notability Criteria. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I agree. Will do Speedy Keep. Thanks for your work! Tow (talk) 15:55, 25 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 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IA Financial Group

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

Article about a company, not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to have their significance externally validated by reliable source coverage and analysis in media and books -- but the only "source" here is the company's own self-published fact sheet about itself. (There's one other footnote, but it's a clarifying note about the company name — "iA Financial Group is a business name and trademark of Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc." — rather than an external reference.)
And while there were other sources here in the past which got stripped in a recent clumsy rewrite by a brand-new editor with a very likely conflict of interest (user name = Inalco, which almost certainly stands for Industrial Alliance Corporation), it was still sourced entirely to content self-published by the company itself and/or simple business directories rather than reliable or notability-supporting journalism, so simply reverting the most recent edit wouldn't solve the problem.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprisingly hard to find information, this is a large Canadian financial institution. Mostly French sources,: they were featured on a consumer protection show in Quebec here: [18], an article about some financial trouble they encountered [19] and a large fine they had to pay [20] and a story about a hacker gaining access to their computer network [21]. Newspaper and a television source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Oaktree b. Also, readers need our help in dealing with this major company. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Passes NCORP per the sources identified by Oaktree b.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 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. Anyone who wants a draft version of this can contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins University in popular culture

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

The same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture and Tulane University in popular culture. A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia - list of works that mention Johns Hopkins University. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/WP:IPC. PS. In case someone is wondering, "Foo University in popular culture" can meet LISTN, of course, WHEN sources exist. Before nominating this I was reviewing Brown University in popular culture, which contains two articles about BU in the works of fiction, etc. ([22], [23]) JHU, unfortunately, has no such sourcing, and my BEFORE failed to locate it - still, I share those links about BU as example of soucing that could save this, if anyone were to locate it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Education, Lists, and Maryland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unjustified collection of trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete So far, trivia; the one case that isn't is about the hospital, not the university. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure trivia, no sources found to prove this is a topic worth listing. Also a textbook example of WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as with the other Suchandsuch University in popular culture, this is content that appears to have got lost on its way to TVTropes. Reyk _YO! 03:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another example of WP:OR by editors, without independent sources to talk reliably and neutrally about the topic. Jontesta (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: consider draftifiation (with full history) at User:Regpath/sandbox/Draft/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to sourcing issues. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:50, 30 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. Sandstein 12:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Jessica O'Grady

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

Lack of sustained coverage. Coverage appears to have been mostly local, with some limited wider coverage in true crime outlets. Daask (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Daask (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nebraska. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She disappeared in 2006. WP:SUSTAINED coverage demonstrates notability as follows:
- 2007:Cooper, T. (2007, Mar 20). Case is tough; so is jury selection 14 people will be picked to decide whether christopher edwards, 20, is guilty of killing jessica O'grady.the christopher edwards trial: [metro, sunrise edition]. Omaha World - Herald Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/case-is-tough-so-jury-selection-14-people-will-be/docview/401965090/se-2?accountid=196403
- 2009: Cooper, T. (2009, Apr 25). World-herald exclusive: JESSICA O'GRADY CASE. Omaha World - Herald Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/world-herald-exclusive/docview/402088838/se-2?accountid=196403
- 2014 https://www.ketv.com/article/was-christopher-edwards-convicted-with-planted-evidence/7645129
- 2016 https://www.ketv.com/article/what-happened-to-jessica-o-grady/7660099
- 2018 https://www.wowt.com/content/news/Court-denies-convicted-killers-appeal-500700082.html
- 2019 https://www.dvidshub.net/news/322752/career-citizen-soldier-reflects-conviction-omaha-missing-person-case-13-years-later CT55555 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The WP:SUSTAINED guideline states, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events, and this is an event article, so to help avoid deletion per WP:NOTNEWS policy, analyzing available sources according to the WP:EVENT guideline is helpful. The WP:EVENT guideline was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG (i.e. "a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material). There are a variety of criteria that can be applied.

1) WP:LASTING, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. There appears to be no indication in the available coverage that the inability to find her body has had a lasting effect on e.g. society or legislation. There also appears to be no impact on the related criminal case, e.g.

"Dornan: Prosecutors don't need body He says there is "significant" evidence to prove Jessica O'Grady's death" Zagurski, Kristin. Omaha World - Herald 10 June 2006 (via Proquest, abstract only),
"EDWARDS' MURDER TRIAL BEGINS TODAY A quest for justice, closure Loved ones still hope to find Jessica O'Grady's remains", Cooper, Todd. Omaha World - Herald 19 Mar 2007 (via Proquest, abstract only).

There is another burst of news in 2009/2010, e.g.

"World-Herald Exclusive: JESSICA O'GRADY CASE" Cooper, Todd. Omaha World - Herald 25 Apr 2009 (via ProQuest, abstract only, states only: "A trace amount of Omaha victim Jessica O'Grady's blood is found on the blade of a suspect's sword The key differences Unlike the car in the Murdock case, Douglas County prosecutors say, Edwards' room was not under the exclusive control of law enforcement."),
"World-Herald Exclusive: Kofoed charged with tampering" Ferak, John. Omaha World - Herald 23 Apr 2009 (via ProQuest, abstract only, includes "The Douglas County CSI director, who has processed evidence in numerous high-profile murder cases, faces criminal charges for his handling of evidence in a Murdock, Neb., double homicide."),
"WORLD-HERALD EXCLUSIVE: Edwards alleges evidence planted" Ferak, John. Omaha World - Herald 14 July 2010 (via Proquest, abstract only, includes, "Dunning said authorities collected overwhelming blood evidence from Edwards' residence"),

which do not appear to demonstrate WP:LASTING effects from the criminal case or the inability to find her body. In 2011, local news reported Cadaver Dog Leads To Reopening Of O'Grady Murder Case (KETV7) and provided a timeline of past events. In 2014, local news reports on a court hearing related to these allegations and mentions O'Grady's body still has not been found: Was Christopher Edwards convicted with planted evidence? (KETV7); in 2016, The Associated Press reports Nebraska man convicted in sword slaying loses appeal, local news interviews her family members in What happened to Jessica O'Grady? (KETV7), and in 2018, The Associated Press reports Court denies convicted killer's appeal. Based on this coverage, it also appears there was no WP:LASTING impact from the criminal case.

2) WP:GEOSCOPE includes An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. For this article, the event is mostly covered by local news, and coverage on the niche programming Forensic Files and Investigation Discovery does not appear sufficient to support this article, particularly as this guideline also emphasizes demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group as key to supporting notability, which appears to be lacking per the sources.

3) WP:INDEPTH notes coverage must be significant and not in passing, which includes analysis that puts events into context. This includes TV news specialty shows, not necessarily a narrative news presentation [24] (how the Investigation Discovery episode appears promoted) but possibly the Forensic Files episode. The routine news coverage and passing mentions related to her disappearance and the related criminal case do not appear to support notability per this guideline.

4) WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE states, The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance, and most of the available coverage appears to focus on the criminal case and appeals unrelated to the inability to find her body.

5) WP:DIVERSE notes, Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, and there does not appear to be a particularly wide range between the local news, the two AP reports about the criminal case appeal, and two episodes of niche crime television to show the significance of the inability to find her body. Circumstantial evidence was used to obtain a conviction, even though her body was not found, and appeals based on alleged defects in the investigation and other procedural issues were unsuccessful.

6) Per WP:NCRIME, Articles about criminal acts [...] are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline....

Per the guidelines and available sources, coverage does not appear sufficiently WP:SUSTAINED to avoid deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, so my !vote is to delete. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Whilst there is some independant coverage, Beccaynr's reasoned argument has swayed me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 08:17, 2 July 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 13:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Hais Hardee Jr.

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

No evidence of notability. Seems to be part of an attempt to write a family history, where some members are notable, some borderline, and some like this one have no actual claim to notability. Perhaps an article on the Hardee family would be better, with this then as a redirect, but as a standalone article it just doesn't make the cut. Sources are primary or involved (written by family members), and looking for better sources gave no useful results. Fram (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Georgia (U.S. state). Fram (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently notable, unless a major in the U.S. Army is not notable. Seasider53 (talk)

A major is indeed not considered automatically notable. Fram (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't have perfect visibility to the sources, but the sources I can access indeed appear to either discuss the family in the aggregate (ref #2) or to be non-independent (ref #5 has same surname, ref #6 starts with "..my grandfather.."). As for Seasider53's argument, military rank alone (let alone a rank as relatively low as a major) is not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:NSOLDIER. Search engines are giving me only the standard non-reliable sources (geni, legacy, findagrave etc.) I'll happily change my vote if someone can identify actual notability establishing coverage, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Ljleppan (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ljleppan, thank you. We live and learn. Seasider53 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we used to consider that all holders of at least the rank of brigadier general (in the US system, other systems use different names) were notable. We have since decided even that was not a justified inclusion standard. Majors are way, way, way, way below the inclusion critieria. Wikipedia is not the place to post the family history research you have done on one of your ancestors, unless they are clearly meeting inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not an alternative to Ancestry or several other sites that allow you to post information on your family. That is no our purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many wrong conclusions can you jump to in one paragraph? A lot, apparently. Seasider53 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardee is not listed in Heitman's "Historical Register and Dictionary of the U.S. Army," which is an extremely inclusive list of all officers commissioned in the army between 1789 and 1902. The son, William, is listed, but neither John Jr. nor John Sr. are listed. This does not preclude their being commissioned in a state militia, but it's pretty definitive when it comes to the Regular Army (regardless of commissioning source). So even if majors were considered notable (and they aren't), the rank can't be verified using a standard secondary source. Intothat darkness 23:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls well short of notability standards. It appears this may also be the case for several other articles about members of the Hardee family and their former family plantation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 1 July 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, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shikhi Sharma

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

biography of a non-notable person MurielMary (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "It took around 1 year for her to complete the book with bank job and family responsibilities." Good grief. Fails WP:GNG in spades. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a Shikhi Sharma who appears to likely have WP:BASIC notability, potentially as "the longest serving woman chief executive officer in the banking sector" as of 2018 (DNA, 2018), e.g. MoneyControl results, Bloomberg Prime opinion, Forbes profile, but is not the author (Indian Express, 2022) described in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The links are for Shikha Sharma, Axis Bank ex-CEO; and an article is already there about her. Hemantha (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you, Hemantha, I reviewed my research too quickly and with interest in developing an article, and failed to notice the spelling. Results for Shikha Sharma were most of what I found when searching for sources about Shikhi Sharma. Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 25 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 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad Gul

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

Appears to be known just for his arrest, no coverage other than that. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Hitro talk 11:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Crime, and India. Hitro talk 11:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E, not enough for a stand-alone article for a non-public figure who has only been arrested. Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 24 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 11:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuri Otay

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 11:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Asia, Europe, and Turkey. Kadı Message 11:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not, indeed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:20, 24 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 11:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huff (board games)

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

Numerous credible sources exist, including two books linked and another very old one from 1891 that can be found on Google Books, but are trivial, one-sentence mentions that are IMO not contributing to "significant coverage". An alternative to deletion would be merging into the article for checkers/droughts. VickKiang (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 24 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 11:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RainCatcher

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

Sadly, I cannot seem to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable, independent secondary sources. I might be wrong and I hope I am. However, Google rarely lies and a Google search returned nothing. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I nominate this page for deletion for not meeting wp:ORG. GDX420 (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Confusion added by a project at Imperial College London called Raincatcher Imperial. As per nom, I could find nothing out there, and that sucks, but WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:40, 24 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 redirect to Uppum Mulakum. ✗plicit 11:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juhi Rustagi

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

The log for this page reads like a who's who of new page patrol. It's a mess, it's always been a mess and I'd recommend it be WP:SALTed to stop it continuing to be a mess. UPE, fails WP:GNG, has been tagged, PRODed and now really needs to go. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the log, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Juhi_Rustagi&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=review&wpfilters%5B%5D=patrol&wpfilters%5B%5D=tag&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers makes it a "a who's who of new page patrol"? Why does it need to be salted when there is no history of re-creating the article? Vexations (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftified, moved back, tagged and tagged and tagged. Also PRODded, PROD removed. Consistent issues include linkrot, copy edit, notability and blp sources tags. Yes, no re-creation, but also yes, persistent insistence on maintaining substandard article with poor sourcing and little/no notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Link rot. That's definitely a reason to delete articles. And of course, copy editing. Another problem that cannot be solved by editing an article. Vexations (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale in the (now contested) PROD. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uppum Mulakum. Juhi Rustagi played "Lachu" in the in the sitcom Uppum Malukum, and has received some coverage in Indian news sources based on that role. She quit that role sometime in 2020 to focus on her studies. She doesn't appear to have played any other significant roles since then. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uppum Mulakum Onmyway22 talk 15:48, 26 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 redirect to Murder of Anni Dewani#Shrien Dewani. ✗plicit 11:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shrien Dewani

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

Very clearly WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT both very much apply to this article, which is tagged for notability (without the crime, Dewani does not, indeed, meet WP:GNG albeit the crime is clearly terrible and regrettable.) but really needs to go for all three reasons. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restoring the redirect is, of course, an option. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of Shrien Dewani except for in the contntext of Murder of Anni Dewani. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rosguill. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons stated plus much of the content duplicates the main murder page, so there doesn't appear to be separate content worth merging from here. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 29 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 11:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grub Street Productions

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

Defunct TV production company fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP no significant coverage, reviews of its productions and articles about sitcoms with passing mentions, where at all. Created Frasier, which article mentions them as one of the production companies behind the series - which is pretty much WP:DUE weight. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expekt.com

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

one of the first major online sports betting operators made me think this had a chance at being a notable company, but "one of" isn't too strong, and I can't find any sourcing to verify this. There's nothing to expand on from the Swedish article and sourcing in both languages are press releases and executive changes, nothing beyond run of the mill and certainly nothing to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, Companies, and Sweden. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Star Mississippi 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. "One of whatever", poorly sourced, is just not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several mentions in reliable and notable sources that can be used to expand the article: https://www.moratidning.se/2009-12-16/conny-gesar-har-salt-spelbolaget-expekt https://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/a/BJr3O9/furstendomet-monaco-koper-svenska-expekt https://www.svd.se/a/f44b1215-7130-3092-8ed1-c19102631bb1/svenska-miljardarer-pa-spel https://www.breakit.se/artikel/28238/leovegas-forvarvar-expekt-for-50-miljoner https://www.realtid.se/ledningsbyte-i-expekt-efter-brak/ https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/hans-hoga-spel-betalar-sig/ Sjö (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
News about sale/merger acquisitions are somewhat routine and/or press-releases. On the bright side, some of them do seem to provide at least a brief description of the company... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sjö. This search retrieves recurring coverage in Sweden's largest daily, this one contains even more form the largest business daily. This article mentions Expekt as having been the biggest online gambling company in Sweden in 2005, while others place is among the 3-6 biggest gambling companies in Sweden overall. Väsk (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe it meets WP:NCORP, however the review of local media is needed to evaluate the media coverage and its quality. --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reviewing the new Swedish citations presented by Sjö I agree that it meets notability. For example, these seem to be good: this, this and this. Zeddedm (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there is a couple of WP:SPAs here. Is it a sock pile on? scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Lookings at some of the refs on this page alone. Apart from the raw search url which is non-rs for Afd:

[25] This is a routine annoucement of a sale.
[[26]] This one is a press-release.
[[27]] A routine annoucement of being bought.
[[28]] Another routine annoucement failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Being sold.
[[29]] More routine coverage. The old owners will share 1.4billion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. monies.

I have no faith that any of these references constitute proper secondary sources that are in-depth, independent and significant, that satisfies WP:SIRS. The articles references equally poor. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, sources are routine financing, company news. So we do not pass WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. Agree with Scope Creep's analysis above. Looking for other sources, I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. WP:NCORP applies here and the sources are missing independent content, let alone enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement. Jontesta (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be popular to some but not notable for Wiki. killer bee  14:59, 29 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 draftify. ✗plicit 11:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dejavu (2022 film)

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

Dejavu (2022 film)

Unreleased film that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines. This article does not say anything about significant coverage of the film by independent sources, because there may not have been any. The two references are both only announcements of the film and the teaser, and so are not independent.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	cinemaexpress.com	Announcement of film and its star and of the teaser	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	dtnext.in	Announcement of film and of teaser	No	Yes	Yes	No

An article was created in article space, and was then moved correctly to draft space by User:Khgk. This copy was then created in article space, perhaps in order to game the system. Since there is already a draft, this version should be deleted as too soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you only assessing the article? You have the film listed on a few other websites, some articles like this one around. [30]. It won't be reviewed until after it's release. I don't see anything wrong with the article. The actors in it are known in that part of the world. Which suggests it should be very well advertised there. I am sure there will be decent sources around. I really don't know what the project have against brand new stub articles of late. Govvy (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Does not have significant independent coverage (note that ads do not count as independent coverage) per WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 12:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Not enough signficant coverage to meey NFF yet. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:22, 30 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 no consensus. Borderng on keep, since the arguments for keeping have remained unadressed by the "delete" side. Sandstein 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rauf Arifoghlu

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

Sent to draft by OneI, uncited material removed from article, material was banged back in by creator and plonked into mainspace in its original condition. Founder of redlinked newspaper and media group, runs redlinked magazine, given redlinked awards. No public service, no position held, founder of re-established party (founded in 1911) he then leaves. It's all very, well, marginal. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Azerbaijan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb, Rauf Arifoğlu was a candidate for the parliamentary elections several times.[31]; [32] He was imprisoned several times for his political activities. And he was recognized as a political prisoner by many international organizations. RFE/RL; [33]; [34]; [35]. His last parliamentary candidacy was controversial. All Azerbaijani media wrote about this right. The election in that region was cancelled BBC; [36], it was not repeated even after 2 years. (Google Translate) --Samral (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG.--Kadı Message 23:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GNG ne demek? Samral (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samral, WP:GNG. Kadı Message 14:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadı bu yorumunuz bu şekliyle çok genel olmuyor mu? O kaidenin hangi ibaresine göre GNG değil. Yukarıdakı yorumumu okudunuz mu? Şahıs bir kaç kez siyasi sebeplerden hüküm giymiş. Cumhurbaşkanının uçağını kaçırmaya teşebbüsle suçlanmış ve haps edilmiş. Bu olaylarda hapse atılmış. Sovyetler Birliği zamanında da aynı şekilde. Amnesty International, HRW, Freedom House ve bir çok uluslararası kuruluş onu politik mahpus olarak tanımış. Kaç kez parlamentoda aday olmuş. Son seçimde bir çok kuruluşa göre millet vekili seçilse de YSK tarafından o bölgedeki seçim iptal edildi. Kendisi 30 yıldır gazeteci ve medya holding patronu. Kurucusu olduğu gazetenin yaşı Azerbaycanın bağımsızlık yaşından bile fazla. Siz şimdi bu şahsın GNG olmadığını mı söylüyorsunuz? Sizce böyle bir yorum objektif mi?--Samral (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samral, If you text in English, I can reply to your question. Kadı Message 14:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Burada Türkçe bildiğiniz, hatta Türkçe Vikimedi projelerinde hizmetli olduğunuz yazıyor. Samral (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samral, That's correct but we are in English Wikipedia now. Kadı Message 14:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadı, isn't your comment too general as it is? According to which phrase on that base, it is not GNG. Did you read my comment above? He was convicted several times for political reasons. He was charged with attempting to hijack the President's plane and was imprisoned. He was imprisoned in these events. It was the same in the time of the Soviet Union. Amnesty International, HRW, Freedom House and many international organizations recognized him as a political prisoner. How many times has he been a candidate in parliament? Although he was elected as a deputy according to many organizations in the last election, the election in that region was canceled by the YSK. He has been a journalist and media conglomerate boss for 30 years. The age of the newspaper he is the founder of is even more than the age of independence of Azerbaijan. Are you now saying that this person is not GNG? Do you think such a comment is objective? (Google Translate) Samral (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the policy? Kadı Message 16:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some more opinions about this article from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources in the article which address the subject "directly and in detail". Without a source analysis demonstrating why these sources do not constitute independent significant coverage, I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion from either Alexandermcnabb or Kadi based in GNG. Further the fact that we lack articles on certain content (such as awards or publications) is not an indicator for or against the notability of that content. Wikipedia lacks coverage on many notable topics, which is why we are constantly adding new content to the encyclopedia. Additionally, the awards for his work as a journalist in his native country indicate he passes criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 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 13:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edition Axel Menges

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

Notability tagged since 2011, apparently written by one of the co-founders. Cites no sources, and the external links don't help support the content either. I don't see evidence of WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. asilvering (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and is written a little bit like an advertisement. The sources for the article are not secondary, independent, or reliable. Because of this it is really hard to say it’s notable. Just because an organization exists does not mean it is notable. I tried to find something that would make this article notable but couldn't. The book publisher does get cited but the citations are for the books it prints not for the publisher. For example https://www.archdaily.com/977462/is-fake-the-new-real-searching-for-an-architectural-reality and ciation 41 in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05439-w. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small publisher/imprint, uncontroversially fails WP:GNG; WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:55, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eidgah Adarsha Shiksha Niketon

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

Does not fulfill WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Non notable school. —MdsShakil (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. —MdsShakil (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear delete, as per Nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't expect local coverage to be significant. Lorstaking 11:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NSCHOOL. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 18:26, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Powervision TV

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

Whole article relied on a single reliable source. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and there's precious little else out there. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with nominator Onmyway22 talk 14:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above, unable to find any references that establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've included the required citations for this topic. it is a notable television channel. It is requested to check this page and remove the deletion label. Arun Biju (talk) 10:16, 30 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!} 04:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Pradère

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

Autobiographical, no evidence that subject meets WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and France. Ploni (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the presented coverage is tangential to the subject and is about BETC Design in the main. Out there in the interwebs there's this and [37] but they're interviews in, effectively, trade media and won't push Christophe over the WP:GNG line, which is a shame 'cos he seems like a talented chap. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:43, 24 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. Looks like some work has been done during the AFD to improve sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EtonHouse International Education Group

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

Fails GNG and written to promote the subject Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had removed the promotional and irrelevant statements and copied from a version that was kept after the previous AFD. Current state might need a bit more work but I think it is enough to be a Keep at this state. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a quick search and there are news articles about this group so I'm pretty sure we can establish notability. I will admit it will take some work to get this article cleaned up. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does the existence of news articles have to do with the notability of the subject? By policy, Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.174.212.211.187 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but in this case if you review the edits I made to the article I included newspaper articles that were covering the schools they run which is allowed WP:MULTSOURCES. Also I included business reviews of the CEOs leadership as well a few other articles covering this group and its role in the language education market. Based off all of these I'm pretty confident that notability has been established WP:ORGDEPTH, but I will admit there is more work that needs to be done on this article. I'll try to update it some more later today and organize the sources more clearly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seeing no issues with the article as it is written at this revision. – robertsky (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Caton

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant coverage. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, this was interesting. While WP:OUTCOMES tells us that, indeed, "Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable", Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom has over 200 subcategories, most of which are embassies and all of which, as per a dip in and out of a few of 'em, are bluelinked. On that basis, yes yes I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable. Not forgetting that WP:OUTCOMES isn't policy and consensus clearly favours the ambassador, I'm going keep here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A few editors churning out huge amounts of junk articles that fail every and any inclusion criteria is not how we build concensus. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, and was built initially with no inclusion criteria at all, so the existence of articles in and of themselves shows neither consensus nor that such articles conform to inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no, ambassadors are not default notable, and we routinely delete articles on ambassadors that lack sourcing to meet GNG. GNG is not met here, and the argument that we should keep this undersourced article because of other articles that do not meet inclusion criteria is not a good one and should not be given any consideration at all. In the case of UK ambassadors to Finland we only have articles on about half of them. A large number of ambassadors are people who are notable for othere things, so the number of articles we have on ambassadors should not be used to show that ambassadors as a class are notable, and with about half of the UK ambassadors to Finland lacking articles, the argument that we should keep this article just because we have many other articles on ambassadors completely falls on its face.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Finland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of Finnish media don't reveal much of relevance. There's an extremely short STT -supplied story in Helsingin Sanomat [38]. She's also mentioned in (and has a quote in) another story in Turun Sanomat, but is not the subject [39]. But that seems to be it. Curiously, there's a story about a British ambassador named Victoria Caton, but I can't figure out what is going on with the name. In any case, that story isn't much in GNG terms either: basically "she visited Turku and we asked for a few comments about Tony Blair. As for we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable, no. Ljleppan (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, and WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanim Hayat Khan Rajit

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

Sources cant be verified. There is no significant coverage. Violation of BLP Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, as well as not passing WP:ANYBIO #3. Réunion (talk!) 04:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, here's a thing. The sources CAN be verified (Google translate, folks!) and they do indeed confirm this gentleman existeth and is indeed a musician - a player of the sarod and from a relatively well known and celebrated family of Bangladeshi musicians. That's the good news. The bad news is that they're pretty poor sources and don't stand up to WP:GNG - and don't back up the vast majority of material in the article, which is pretty much OR all the way and likely written by someone close to the subject. Whether we need articles about Bangladeshi sarod players in enwiki, I do not know. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All information sources are real. You can simply google Tanim Hayat Khan Rajit. This guy represented Bangladesh in international platform in Commonwealth Games Australia in 2018 and the interview with SBS Australia is a significant proof of that. Strong evidence as such and few more are good enough. Otherwise, I'm happy to reduce the content as you are saying is too much without backing up. Well, not every single information can be backed up. You need to understand the authenticity by looking at one or two. That's the professional judgment you are required to apply. this guy also performed internationally in USA and that evidence was provided too! I found a lot of celebrates wiki page with almost none or one reference. TAFEAN (talk) 01:25, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Fakhro

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

Written to promote the company. Sources are not reliable Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Fakhro is a holding company, and it has more than 70 subsidiary companies.

https://mbafakhro.com/what-we-do/

Kindly avoid the deletion of MBA Fakhro page. Arun Biju (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible WP:PROMO. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources from top news websites that bizbahrain.com, bahrainthisweek.com, saudigazette.com.sa, twentyfoursevennews.com, dayofdubai.com, newsofbahrain.com etc. Kindly consider to withdraw this page deletion. Arun Biju (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is written from the company's viewpoint. Corporate notability is based on what third parties say about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance and support. I will check and remove all the sentences written from the company's viewpoint. Arun Biju (talk) 04:27, 27 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 speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Lee

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

~~Unable to find any significant independent coverage.~~ – Ploni (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Hong Kong. Ploni (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Her 2016 exhibit was reviewed in the SCMP, which is probably significant enough to meet WP:GNG. –Ploni (talk) 03:59, 24 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 13:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu (1989 film)

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

Lacks reliable sources, cannot find reviews at The Indian Express archives [40] or Kalki [41]. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 24 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 13:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H Now Entertainment

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

Non notable entertainment channel. Fails WP:ORG. AHatd (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. AHatd (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Noel

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

Fails WP:GNG as there is a lack of in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. An internet search yields very little, even when using his full given name. He has worked with notable artists, but this does not make him notable himself. If suitable sources are found, I'd be happy to retract. JTtheOG (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Illinois. JTtheOG (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncontroversially fails WP:GNG, Allmusic/Discogs doesn't cut it, search throws up nothing. Quite fun, "In October 2012 Gabe toured Poland with Austin Peralta, his last solo performances before his death" but then Gabe goes on to perform again in 2014, so we can only assume his death was a metaphorical one on stage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the last performances by Austin Peralta before his death. Gabe still walks among the living, but perhaps not among the notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just couldn't resist the syntax/grammar... ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the world of AfDs for musicians, we occasionally see journeymen support musicians like this and it can be unfortunate. Mr. Noel has indeed worked with a lot of notable musicians, behind the scenes as a songwriter, arranger, backing band member, etc. ([42]) If he has made an honest living in this fashion, kudos to him. But for his article here, notability is not inherited from the famous people he has backed. I can find nothing reliable and significant on him and his career in their own right, and most of his visibility is only in the credits for other people's works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 24 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!} 02:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Kofela

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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!} 02:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merina Joe

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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!} 02:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Donga

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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!} 02:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Aihunu

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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. Consensus is clear. However if someone thinks that sourced information should be discussed elsewhere, I'm happy to provide the text for merger/attribution. Star Mississippi 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Gordon

AfDs for this article:

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

This painting has absolutely no notability for a stand-alone article at WP. The sources only cite references that back generalized comments about the artist; not the actual painting. Any analytical content about the painting is purely "personal opinion" or "original research". The section Formal qualities have no references to back any claims. The section Purpose is pure speculation; and references cited do not back any claims for notable inclusion but mere mention of the artist, not the subject. The section Background is once again merely a personal opinionated take on the painting with absolutely no sources to back claims, again. This painting is of no significance and if there is anything to be mentioned about it, the content could easily merge with the artist's page. However, without sources to back any of the claims in this article, I can't see it being mentioned for any plausible reason. Maineartists (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete An engine search rendered no relevant or notable sources that review, discuss, analyze or even mention the painting other than what has been created in this article at WP and Wiki-linked. No historical significance or background for inclusion can be found in any source that would constitute inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the previous AfD for this article, I objected to deletion, and so did one other contributor. The article was kept. That didn't mean that I thought the article is any good: It's terrible. None of the online sources cited in the article mention the painting. The article if full of outright nonsense: "By 1972, Neel was nearing the end of her life..." Not true, she died 12 years later, in 1984. "Dana Gordon depicts an everyday man, presumably of middle or lower class. " Dana Gordon is a painter and writer, born in 1944. The article claims that the work is owned by the Neel Estate, but that failed verification: [43] The entire article is WP:OR, and none of it appears to be supported by RS. One day, it may be possible to write a properly sourced article, but the current version must be entirely rewritten or deleted. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As I said before - Strong painting by Alice Neel who had a major retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A portrait of an important writer and artist who has been a prolific essayist and art critic in recent years...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Read this by art critic James Panero: [44]...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernist I think Alice Neel is one of the best and most important American modern painters, and I'd love it if we had articles on many of her paintings, but: Is there anything in this article that you think can be kept? Vexations (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Modernist That didn't hold water then, and it won't hold water now. Personal opinion does not warrant an article. I did read the article 3 times before nominating it for AfD. The article is about Dana Gordon the artist, and doesn't even mention the painting. As well: online sources regarding the "retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art" do not mention this painting. There is no significant or relevant sources that back your claim of its importance. Maineartists (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Also, the painting wasn't in the MET retrospective. [45] Do we know where it is? I've searched auction records, but can't find it. Vexations (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  We do not. The article only speculates: "... the painting was most likely commissioned by the man for his own personal ownership, before being handed over to the Alice Neel Estate." The inline citations do not even back this claim. Maineartists (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Dana Gordon is notable as an artist and writer. The article should reflect that and engage his complex biography...needs some competent editorial work. See this link...[46]...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Alice Neel and James Panero are telling us that Dana Gordon is notable. The article definitely needs improvement though...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article is not about Dana Gordon. 2. "I think" is not a reason for inclusion. Supply references to back your claim. 3. The article needs references. End of story. Maineartists (talk) Maineartists (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does this link have to do with the painting by Alice Neel? The segment on CBS Sunday Morning - "Artist Alice Neel, a collector of souls" last year never mentioned this painting; yet talked about her vast production of portraits. I'm not sure you understand how articles at WP actually work. Dana Gordon is not notable as an artist or writer. Otherwise, he would have his own article at WP. But that is completely beside the point. There is not one source that makes this painting (or its artist) notable. The link you provided is the artist's own website. The reference itself is mere promotional and not even a source for this painting or its article. Maineartists (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The painting itself lacks significant coverage in independent sources. The critical commentary on the painting is all original research. Clearly fails WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand Modernist's frustration since Alice Neel is an exceptionally important artist, and Dana Gordon an interesting artist and writer. However, if I'm not mistaken, the article is not about Gordon, it's about a portrait of Gordon, and the painting itself is not notable. It does seem like WP:OR, and that there significant coverage of the painting does not exist (at least not yet). If sources on the painting can be found, I'm happy to change my !vote, or if enough sources on Gordon himself can be found to create a stand alone article on him, then the painting can be included in that article. At this time it does not meet WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 20:03, 2 July 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 the sources indicated in the discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Math Suks

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Didn't chart, wasn't reviewed independently of the album, only got brief attention from one math journal and a roast on Colbert. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mathematics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. The song comes up with scattered mentions or reviews of the album in total, nothing for the song in particular. For all we have here, it could just be transposed into a section in the article about the album. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in Cincinnati Enquirer [47], Orlando Sentinel [48] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, as the article is in terrible shape, and even its respective album article has hardly any prose. The current article has almost no substance - I started trimming out the overly wordy, flowery language, but stopped when I realized I'd trim it down to almost nothing if I kept going. I have no prejudice towards someone spinning it back out if someone decides to actually write a substantive article, as it's name did seem to garner some coverage. But unless someone does a massive rewrite/expansion in the coming days, the spin out isn't currently warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the language "overly wordy, flowery"? The article is not an artistic review. It is about the vision of math conveyed by the song and the reaction of math teachers to it.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article, upon my first read of it, read as:

Consistent with its stated theme, the song lyrics are largely an emotional catharsis; mathematical terms are used only in a very superficial way. Presumably for that reason, the song seems to have little appeal to mathematicians, and even less to mathematics teachers.

This framing is insane for what this is. It's a guy with a guitar grumbling about math being hard, which mathematicians didn't like. There's way more concise (and better) ways to convey that message. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beach House on the Moon. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Not enough independent coverage aside from the 2 sources presented by Donald. SBKSPP (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now convinced enough with more sources presented below. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles do review the song independently from the album (as linked above), and even mocked on The Daily Show. [49] Geeky Randy (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Show? That's like saying something is notable because there's a cutaway gag of it on Family Guy. Remember when Family Guy did a random reference for the sake of making a reference? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing is not like the second thing. Jacona (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song (not the album) is notable because it "was in fact promptly condemned by the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Education Association for its alleged negative effect on children's education," as documented by the reference. I added a new ref to an article in a scholarly journal of education that cites and briefly discusses the song.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The album this song came from debuted in the top ten of the US album sales chart, and already has 2 RS reviews in it. So the album the song is from is certainly notable according to WP:NALBUMS. (Just pointing this out before someone tries to shift focus to deleting that. The album isn't the problem here.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established here. I think a close is in order. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 25 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.