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 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arvydas Čepulionis[edit]

Arvydas Čepulionis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT in that he has not competed at the highest level of his sport. Fancruft. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2021 (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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EVie (company)[edit]

EVie (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization. A before search predominantly links me to user generated sources and directories. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is not present. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the deletion thing in the morning, not at this time of night. No clue how this company has anything to do with the USA or New Jersey? Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jèrriais janne: Looks like nom must've misread "Jersey" as "New Jersey" somehow. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep EVie bike 'Park and Ride' introduced in Jersey is an independent source. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several sources are shown in the article. Station1 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After your concerns, I have added more independent sources to the article, including BBC, ITV, Bailiwick Express. Jèrriais janne (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are reliable independent sources. passes WP:NORG.Seddiq Sabri 21:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With the reliable independent sources added by Jèrriais janne, this article easily satisfies WP:NORG. Krillzyx (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Galvan[edit]

Jacob Galvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria: only two sources are cited, one of which is the subject's personal website. A Google search has not revealed additional reliable sources. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE: neither the article nor the composer's website[1] indicate that his compositions have been published by a major music publisher, or that they have been performed by prominent ensembles, or that recordings of them have been released by a major record label. The article has previously been tagged with ((autobiography)) and has been proposed for deletion, but this does not appear to have been discussed. There are no incoming links. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. Also seems like a WP:PROMO piece. KidAd • SPEAK 23:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I’m not finding any RIS to support the context of article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG·Misasory (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am pretty sure this article is a copy-paste of this (one of the sources the article has). Besides that, he doesn't seem to be notable as of right now, he might become notable in the future. However, Wikipedia can't predict notability, therefore this article should be deleted. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2021 (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 move to draftspace. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It now rests at Draft:Critical social justice. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical social justice[edit]

Critical social justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The current contents of this article should not stay under this title, as it is, for our purposes, a neologism: the framework essentially describes the work of Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo who do not use the term, with the citation of de Vita (2014) appearing to serve only to suggest coherence to the term. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus, but documented serious WP:SYNTH issues with the article; the attempts to repair them resulted in an article that is entirely misleading about the fact that the term was proposed by Lindsay and Pluckrose, who are introduced first in 'The Response' section. Note the WP:NEO policy requires that we have reliable sources tying the term we use for a topic with the characterisation of the topic we use: for the article as it stands, such reliable sources do not appear to exist.

The article was created this year and had it been created as a draft, it would be unlikely to pass AfC. I propose that the article be moved to draft space, since the attempt to solve the problems with the article in the course of the AfD resulted in the unacceptable article we have now. The writing in the article is mostly OK, apart from the essentially deceptive form the article takes, and it seems likely there is some home for much of the content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draftspace per nom - This remains a neologism with essentially no usage outside a small activist group; its declared intent being to "brand" the social justice movement with a negative label. Scholarly sources and non-ideological sources don't use the phrase at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft - Agree with the fact that the sources don't match the term. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a very clear majority for keeping, but the arguments on that side tend to be an assertion that the provided sources show that the subject meats SIGCOV, even though many of these sources either lack independence or give only passing mention to the association. Still, there is some merit to the keep argumet, SFREA's sources 9 and 10, while thin, did give some mention of activities that the assosociation has organized. Notability is a guideline, and I am unwilling to delete based on a guideline unless consensus supports that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Renewable Energy & Clean Technology[edit]

Association for Renewable Energy & Clean Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about an organization that does not satisfy WP:NORG. My WP:BEFORE only shows one of their members being quoted in an article. I can't find any signifigant coverage on the organization. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Satisfies WP:NORG, as is featured in secondary sources including BBC^[1], UK Government^[2] press releases and resources ^[3], multiple sector news features consistently over the course of a decade, and is noted on the UNFCCC website as a COP26 official observer. Members include large organisations which easily satisfy notability such as Drax_Group, NatWest, Suez_Environnement, and Triodos_Bank, and National_Grid_plc. SFREA (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)— SFREA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient independent coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:, would you mind showing the coverage because I wasn't able to find any. WP:SOURCESEXIST is a weak argument with out proof. The sources provided above are not sufficient, the BBC one is only a quote from a member and another quote of one of the stats they provide, the other 2 simply prove they exist and they all fail WP:ORGDEPTH. The article only refers to their own webpage. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you expect apart from quotes from members? That is the coverage that associations of this sort generate. Rathfelder (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it fails WP:ORGDEPTH we need to see something written about the organization by someone besides themselves and we need to see it in independent reliable sources. A quote from a member is trivial coverage and does nothing to help support notability. If no one outside of the group has taken the time to write about the organization in any reliable sources then they do not meet the inclusion criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32690765			Quote from member, nothing about the organization	✘ No
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/210825/electric-vehicles.htm		~	This only proves it exists, tells us nothing about it	✘ No
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1002842/All_Longer_Duration_Energy_Storage_Slides__1_.pdf	It a presentation by them	no editorial oversight	nothing about them	✘ No
https://www.r-e-a.net/about	It's their own website			✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-government-climate-idUSTRE49261920081003			A single quote from a member	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/27/government-rhetoric-on-green-energy-needs-to-be-matched-by-action	This is a joint open letter sent to a newspaper		does not discuss the organization	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00x24pl	News talk show interview	~ It's a news talk show	Does not discuss the organization	✘ No
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/destroying-spoilt-beer-during-coronavirus-covid-19	~	~	it's lists an email address to an employee if the organization	✘ No
https://wrap.org.uk/resources/guide/bsi-pas-110-producing-quality-anaerobic-digestate			I don't even see a mention	✘ No
https://www.bioenergy-news.com/news/winners-of-rea-british-renewable-energy-awards-announced/	Press Release by the organization			✘ No
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/afor-members-approve-merger-with-rea/			A routine announcement of a merger.	✘ No
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/rea-organics-celebrates-25-years/			~ Significant coverage on one of it's subsidiaries	~ Partial
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/renewable-energy-awards	It's a transcript of a speech given by a government official at their awards ceremony	Political speech	Political speech	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• I have added this source assessment table with my assessments on the sources provided thus far. What am I missing that makes this organization notable? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have included more links which highlight wide coverage here. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]} Here, I have included references to pages which hopefully satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH - I understand this to be secondary sources devoted primarily to coverage of the topic at hand, as opposed to featuring supplementary quotes. ^{[6] [7] [8] [9]} For transparency, I am employed by this organisation and have a conflict of interest. However, this does not prevent me from a) presenting fact-based arguments according to standard Wikipedia protocol for why this page should avoid deletion, and b) suggesting improvements to the original article, as it is clear the article needs significant improvement and does not sufficiently reflect the coverage, significance, or scope of the organisation. I will suggest improvements to the article shortly, but hope that the page can avoid deletion before then. SFREA (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you additional references and helping the discussion. I have added them to my assessment. Only 2 of them really do any sort of swaying for me but not enough yet to change my mind. The first one from letsrecycle is what we would generally call routine or trivial coverage of a merger and generally does not count towards establishing notability. However the second article by them does a much better job towards providing some significant coverage even though it is primarily on an organization they acquired. The rest did very little to help with notability, If we can find more like the second letsrecycle article about the REA, preferably by another media agency, this would potentially breach the inclusion criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would jointly written/commissioned public reports/publications/policy papers help satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH? SFREA (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, why? That's primary material. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Within ORGDEPTH you find headings for "Examples of substantial coverage" and "Independant sources", which should help with understanding what we need to see to establish notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding these references to your assessment table. I readily admit I am not familiar with Wikipedia procedures, so forgive me my questions. As the REA is a trade association (a membership organisation), can I clarify that when you specify "member" in the assessment table, you mean "staff", as opposed to an organisational member (for example, Drax, as I mentioned in an earlier addition to this discussion)? If you do mean organisational member, then I would correct the table as all quotes featured are of direct organisational staff, so coverage is directly of the organisation (REA) as opposed to organisational members (e.g Drax). Regarding all sources related to Government (e.g. APPG, LDES Competition, Government speech), the intention was to demonstrate notability through interest in REA activities - the REA is not a public sector organisation, there is no need for Government engagement, and therefore the fact that there is engagement indicates a degree of "merited weight" that the REA carries. Which, in a non-wikipedia jargon sense, I would say qualifies as notability, but appreciate this might not help the case for keeping the REA page in this context. Regarding the link to the WRAP PAS110 page, as mentioned in my references, PAS110 is a scheme run by REAL, which is a subsidiary of the REA, as is the Biofertiliser Specification Scheme. Regarding the Let'sRecyle merger news item, could you please help me understand what differentiates a routine/trivial coverage of a merger from significant coverage of a merger? Assume this has to do with controversy. Finally, I would clarify that the Let'sReycle article concerning REA Organics is not about a legal subsidiary (such as Renewable Energy Assurance Ltd. (REAL)), but a practical internal division of member organisations - the separation of REA Organics to the REA has no external or legal meaning. If you feel any of these notes are appropriate, I would appreciate if you could integrate them into the source assessment table.SFREA (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my text above, here is a list of further secondary sources which might support arguments that the topic at hand satisfies WP:SIGCOV.^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}. Hopefully some of these WP:SIGCOV and indicate that there is some breadth to international coverage.SFREA (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I agree with nominator. "featured in secondary sources" is not much of an argument with sources like this when nothing is actually "featured"--a spokesperson is quoted, that's all. Rathfelder's "What do you expect apart from quotes from members? That is the coverage that associations of this sort generate" is also not an argument: what we expect, in deletion discussions, are secondary sources that discuss the subject. No coverage, no article. The nominator's analysis of the sources indicates just how weak the sourcing is here; "Sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG" is thus not just a cliche, it's also just not true. This edit by User:Mean as custard indicates the provenance of the article--it may have started as a good-faith attempt, but it was hijacked pretty quickly by an obvious COI editor, and the subsequent pruning proved there was nothing there. No, McMatter did a good job with the analysis--the article should be deleted. And User:SFREA, I appreciate the fact that you disclosed your COI, but your links and your arguments should not win the day here. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Context matters. Very few articles in Category:Trade associations have in depth coverage about their internal workings. What makes them notable is the fact that their spokespeople get coverage as legitimate representatives. Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources above. Disagree that they are trivial when viewed collectively.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more (I would say hundreds) of sources which include coverage. If there is a critical point at which a sufficient number of references which provide coverage which wouldn't individually qualify as significant would satisfy WP:SIGCOV, then I would be happy to provide these.SFREA (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sum total of the sources gets it over the WP:SIGCOV threshold IMHO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Drmies. The stub of an article leaves me puzzled over what the organisation does, and the explanations of why the sources found can't really be used to write anything else are convincing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets our guideline for WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – having perused all of the references cited above, I'm not finding anything that would get the Association over the WP:NORG hurdle. The grand majority do not provide significant coverage, consisting instead of brief passing mentions like "a report by the Association...found" or "according to such-and-so of the Association...". Neither enables us to write actual content about the organization, and thus they doesn't count toward notability. (Contra the comments above, combining trivial mentions only yields more trivial mentions, not sigcov.) The Letsrecycle.com pieces are the only ones that could suffice, but 1) it's arguably the sort of trade publication discouraged by WP:ORGIND, 2) barring significant coverage (not trivial mentions) by sources other than "media of limited interest and circulation", WP:AUD isn't met, and 3) multiple sources are required to establish notability. At the end of the day, our deliberately strict notability guidelines for organizations do not seem to be met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Drmies and Extraordinary Writ. Taken as a collective and individually, the sources provided fail WP:SIGCOV and do not provide content for page expansion. The majority of the sources provide trivial coverage of the organization without going into detail, even in the articles where REA is not the main topic. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More sources are added below, all aiming to further demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]} Further to comments by Rathfelder, I struggle to understand what is expected of satisfactory secondary sources with specific reference to trade associations (TA) - by their very nature, all TA labour is around specific lobbying subjects, such as a particular law, the case for economic support for specific technologies, or discussions surround recent issues such as the "shortage" of fuel in the UK, and consequently HGV drivers.

In this context, when would a trade association ever be highlighted by national news purely to discuss the association themselves, and not in the context of a topic that is a) newsworthy and b) they are actively working on. If the above is of importance, then many of the articles above highlight that, and a quick google of "Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology" (not a common name I can assure you) comes up with hundreds of hits. Consequently, are Wikipedia guidelines either suggesting that TAs should not be included ever (also further to Rathfelder's comment re Category:Trade associations)? Or that most articles re TAs in their current format are insufficient, and if so, can you please present a reasonable example of a source for a trade association which satisfies WP:SIGCOV? Finally, if a strong reason for not keeping the article is its current poor quality (which I do not dispute) I will provide an updated and rigorously referenced article within the next 24 hours which will of course still be up for editing, but will hopefully deal with some of this issue. However, my understanding is the current quality of an article should not have any impact on whether or not a topic satisfies notability guidelines. SFREA (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have to say, !voting keep on this is quite a surprise to me. It is an extremely crappy stub about a political lobbying organization, sourced entirely to their own website, and the AfD is ballooned out with walls of text involving arguments from a paid employee of the organization trying to get it kept. It's a slam dunk "delete", the kind of "delete" that makes your hair stand on end and your heart throb with bloodlust. There is, however, one problem: they're right. At least as far as I can tell. In the Let's Recycle sources, I see what looks like an independent third-party source. I am open to being proven wrong on this, but their coverage of the REA seems fine to me. I mean, let's say that this is an invalid rationale, and the page has to instead be called (and about) solely the Renewable Energy Association (which clears GNG because the LR article is now about the subject)... would the article not be WP:RMed to its new name immediately anyway? The other piece on LR is, well, significant, and it's coverage. I have never been much for WP:ROUTINE or WP:MILL arguments, since they prove too much (if a gigantic monster obliterated New York City, you could truthfully say that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE since the New York Times does profiles on every monster who stomps the city flat). What it looks like is that media outlets decided the organization was worth writing articles about, which implies notability. jp×g 09:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been one of the best keep rationales so far. I would however like to make a single rebuttal our criteria generally requires multiple independent sources has published stories on the subject in this case the only one to have written on the subject in any significant coverage way has been LR. I'll be honest the LR articles almost have me changing my mind but I need to see someone else has written about this organisation. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No sources are listed in the article page; if reliable sources exist, they need to be cited there. Multi7001 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Multiple sources are using this organisation as a "goto" organisation for information and influential to UK Governemnet. Near 20 year history gives SUSTAIN . There's been no evidence of exploration of MERGE by those seeking delete; and there's at least one obvious merge target. Anything other than keep seems insane, especially given current climate/energy issues. I doubt sources are exhausted yet so insane. Obviously would be helpful if there was UK Governement scandal somewhere. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note no-ones eems to have looked at The Ecologist source presented by current incumbent UNESCO Wikipedian Foundation member in residence at {Diff|Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology|prev|603281602)) claiming cosiness with the big 6 if I read it right. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that the company CEO Nina Skorupska now has a Wikipedia page, linked to the REA page, which explicitly references awards (CBE) won in relation to the REA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFREA (talk • contribs) 09:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Due to lack of new participation and due to a lack of consensus on the suitability of the sources. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers[edit]

Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails general notability guidelines. Sources are unreliable. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Dear Yahya Please note that Hacker's are not favorable, so they can't have or be in websites that we rely on. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakura emad: Yes, but to have an article on Wikipedia, there should be minimum coverage in reliable newspapers to pass GNG. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 00:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep some of the external links look like mainstream media with reliable significant coverage. I am uncertain how to evaluate some of the foreign language sources. Without a more detailed source analysis from the nominator I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion. Best.4meter4 (talk)

• Keep Sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Greatder (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how those links contribute to the notability of this topic. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DW.com is considered reliable by consensus(even though I don't like to use their slide articles). And you can't expect everyone to get a 20 minute analysis report, the group was also covered by BBC. I did not see where this computer barta is though. Greatder (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BBC source there, and the Deutsche Welle article says explicitly that it's repeating WP:USERGENERATED content. That's not independent coverage as described in the WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the BBC source in the article, the dw article is reviewed by editor দেবারতি গুহ and written by আরাফাতুল ইসলাম, and is not user generated content. Greatder (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When evaluating sources we must consider not just the publisher, but also the author and the content. Except for Computer Barta (which puts other media reports in context, reports government reaction, and interviews three local computer experts), the sources merely uncritically repeat what has been posted (supposedly by the organiztion) on webpages that Wikipedia doesn't consider reliable sources, such as a Facebook fan page. The resulting articles are not reliable, not independent, and not secondary. Contrast them with the in-depth independent analysis of hacker group Anonymous in a source like [8]. As explained in WP:WHYN, without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, we can't write an article that is complete, that doesn't contain rumor or gossip, and that is fair, balanced, and not promotional. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce:DW.com is considered reliable by consensus(even though I don't like to use their slide articles). And you can't expect everyone to get a 20 minute analysis report, the hacking was also covered by BBC as seen in the articles references. It was covered in ndtv too. Greatder (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer Barta article isn't reliable either. For example, it gives NDTV and Yahoo News as sources for the "20,000 websites" claim, but NDTV [9] used Xinhua's report (via its Bangladesh correspondent) [10] of the group's Facebook claims, and Yahoo News simply re-published the IANS copy+paste of the same Xinhua story [11]. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources in Bengali indicated by Greatder seem reliable. The sources talk about the Black Hat Hackers except for source 2, which is a brief description of the hackers and their comparison with the White Hat Hackers. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, enough Bengali sources for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All but one source is a report of a massive 2012 attack against Indian websites that (a) wasn't reported outside Bangladesh and (b) isn't substantiated by anything other than the group's own Facebook claims; most of those sources are playing telephone, repeating the group's Facebook claims via Xinhua's article [12], either directly by citing Xinhua or indirectly via other tertiary sources which ultimately trace back to Xinhua. Greatder's Deutsche Welle article perhaps says it best:

  "Various information about this is available on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogs" [via Google Translate; emphasis mine].

  What we have here is a single source supporting one attack on one website, and a several reports of an incident that is known only from a Facebook post and was never independently confirmed. It's a hoax--real hacks are easy to confirm, e.g. www.google.com/search?q=india+pakistan+hackers. So, I see one WP:RS for one insignificant prank--not a notable group. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is BBC, DW, ndtv, prothom alo, daily star not enough reliable sources?Greatder (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are quite a lot of notable things that aren't reported on outside their country of origin. I highly doubt that Bangladeshi sources would cover, for example, William Hale (fourth governor of the Wyoming Territory). jp×g 22:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was leaning to vote delete per WP:1E but then found coverage on several activities by this group other than the "cyber war". Combining all the sources, the group seems to have enough notability to pass WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 03:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is clearly enough RS to cover this topic in some form, whether in Andrew Yang's article or in a standalone article, so deletion is not a possible result here. WP:NOTINHERITED is ultimately a subjective criterion, and one for which I have not found a rough consensus in either direction, merge or keep. Discussion of a potential merger can continue on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Party[edit]

Forward Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Stub article of currently negligible interest. Can be concisely described in its existing section within the article Andrew Yang SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Founding of an organization, with the potential to become a third party, that receives this much media attention: NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS and many more is notable. The founder of the party, Yang, who was well-known as a Democrat, leaving the Democratic, and founding this party, is also an unusual occurrence, but makes this that much notable. Well sourced article and it's certainly not a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not the news. Not everything that becomes a news story (especially in today's 24/7 news cycle) is independently notable enough to warrant its own article. And the "potential to become a third party" is not grounds for an article. SecretName101 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The "potential to become a third party" is neither grounds for an article nor grounds to delete the article. This political organization is notable enough to warrant an article even if it does not develop into a true third party. A very similar situation is the Movement for a People’s Party - which also has its own Wikipedia article. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mt.FijiBoiz: Movement for a People’s Party appears to also have negligible notability, and might warrant deletion as well. And explain to me how the Forward Party is "notable enough"? SecretName101 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Andrew_Yang#Founding_of_the_Forward_Party. Too soon to call this a legitimate party or even a "movement", and astonishing that people like Yang are still dumb enough to think that creating a third party in a first past the post system will magically solve partisanship. No notability – at this point – outside of Yang himself here, though it could be converted to be an article on his book Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy instead. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The founding of this political organization has received coverage from notable and credible sources such as NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS and many other - this establishes enough notability for the org to have a Wikipedia article. Personal views on Yang's intelligence or the creation of third parties in the United States should not factor into the decision as others in this discussion have argued. This article is in need of editors to edit and expand it, not to delete and blank it. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, lots of coverage, not-so-coincidentally timed with Yang's book release and tour. Yang, his ideas, and perhaps his book are notable, but not a day-old "party". Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't really see a reason why this article shouldn't exist. The subject has received a decent amount of notable media coverage and the person behind it is a fairly well known figure in U.S. politics today. Editors expectations about whether the subject will actually achieve its goals or not shouldn't factor in to whether the article should exist. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person behind it being fairly well known does not justify this being an independent article. Hence, why I believe it suffices for now to simply leave it as a section in Andrew Yang's own article. SecretName101 (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It appears somewhat likely that a viable third party may arise, and merging this directly to Andrew Yang seems to tie it to a person, which it should not. That could ultimately be like wanting to tie MLB to the Abner Doubleday page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.138.243 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The above is almost entirely WP:CRYSTALBALL. Curbon7 (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Major League Baseball has existed as an organization since 1903, with its antecedents dating back to 1876. The Forward Party has existed for one day so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But, ignoring how long they have existed for, Major League Baseball and the Forward Party are both notable organizations that represent more than their founder. Merging the Forward Party with Andrew Yang doesn't make any sense, in my opinion. JoeUnexotic (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How is the Forward Party notable beyond the 24 hour news cycle? It's not even a registered political party yet and there is no indication that the coverage will be WP:LASTING. Curbon7 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Andrew Yang for the time being. This organization (which has not yet become a political party) was literally founded today (based on my time zone, at least). It might grow and gain significant support or it might fade into nonexistence and be abandoned before the midterm U.S. elections in 2022. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Andrew_Yang#Founding_of_the_Forward_Party. It is possible that this organization may take off; until then it appears that most of the coverage is about the founder, not the organization. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To those citing "media coverage", yes it is receiving media coverage. Because Yang is a notable figure, and this is something he is doing. The party itself has yet to receive independent notability apart from its relation to Yang. SecretName101 (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Andrew_Yang#Founding_of_the_Forward_Party. All the media coverage is about Yang more than the party. It just isn't ready yet. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No clear reason why this is deserving of a Wikipedia page. Only reason this is receiving coverage is the involvement of Yang. The party itself hasn’t endorsed any candidates, so we have no evidence that this party will have any impact deserving of an article. Mannysoloway (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally wrong. They just endorsed a candidate. [13] Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge This party is in name only and has only existed for a day. wait until it actually gains some traction.BigRed606 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete Right now, 3rd-party coverage is mostly acknowledging that this thing exists, but no one can say what it is, which just isn't enough for an article. Right now, Forward looks more like Kanye West's Birthday Party, which was deleted, in that there's nothing to it but the noteworthy founder. When Forward starts endorsing candidates, or registers as a party, I think that should be revisited. JebtheTree (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the businessman best known for running for President on UBI is equivalent to a crazy rapper, who ran a vanity campaign.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The subjective merits of Andrew Yang and Kanye West aren't the question. The point I make is that the Forward Party, at this moment, is just a one-man band, just as the Birthday Party was - and neither is a registered party. JebtheTree (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "one-man band though. Look at it's organizers. Blair Walshingham and Jeff Kurzon are independently notable. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Because Yang is a notable figure in politics, this organization is receiving coverage from notable media outlets. This is a game changer in American politics. Asher Heimermann (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you hope this will be a game changer, but as yet, no game has been changed. No RS says that it's a game changer. It's just a thing Yang has said and started to do. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As stated above, Yang is a notable political figure and a viable third party may actually arise from this, so I see no reason to get rid of the article. YoungstownToast (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid reasons for keeping article. Notability is not inherited. And WP:CRYSTALBALL. SecretName101 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Both of the keeps above me should be disregarded because notability is not inherited. There is no metric besides being a crystal ball in which we can predict how this "party" will succeed or fail in the future. Curbon7 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: significant media attention and the founding of a third party in the US is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C000:DA40:1592:923A:7E9F:B184 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — 2601:147:C000:DA40:1592:923A:7E9F:B184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:147:C000:DA40:1592:923A:7E9F:B184 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge to Andrew_Yang#Founding_of_the_Forward_Party per FiddleheadLady, Metropolitan90, Reywas92. Wait until something actually happens. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete As the political party is not notable. It is a political action committee. Media coverage doesn't mean the party is notable. Ghost finders (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Andrew Yang per WP:INHERITED. The PAC has not generated independent media coverage based on its activities; the announcement has only been covered because Yang is an established political figure. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an important Wikipedia page to track a promising new political party in America. In order to give third parties a fair chance and let their voices be heard, simple Wikipedia pages describing is an important step to ensuring they are not silenced. I strong recommend this page to be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/192.236.121.217 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the above keep vote is based on policy at all. WIkipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Curbon7 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In general, I would be interested to hear any arguments for the negative consequences of keeping any existing article--provided that it is about a genuine entity in the world. The Forward Party exists. It is not Andrew Yang. Why should there NOT be an article about it? Other than a negligible increase in server costs and an even milder affect on search efficiency, I think you'd be hard-pressed to even make a case for why an article about an actual political entity shouldn't exist. Obviously there are plenty of reasons to edit or correct an article, and if such errors exist, then by all means correct them. Though he founded it, The Forward Party is NOT Andrew Yang, and it is reasonable to expect the party (and the article) to grow independently of Andrew Yang. At the very least, I can say it already served a useful purpose, for I myself found it valuable in linking me to the Forward Party's website. Googling "Forward Party" brought me first to Wikipedia, and I'd have had a harder time trying to find the link by scrolling through Andrew Yang's article. Additionally, I'd urge everyone to be wary of attempts at censorship. Articles of a political nature are likely to attract attempts at censorship. Does acknowledging this reality indicate my failure to assume good faith? Perhaps. But I speak not of any particular case, but simply of the importance of acknowledging that if anyone were to attempt censorship of a Wikipedia article, this is precisely the sort of article where we should expect to see it. 76.189.243.122 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC) — 76.189.243.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Literally not a word of the above keep !vote is based off of policy. Curbon7 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@76.189.243.122: It undermines Wikipedia's prestige to be having articles on non-notable subjects. Also, if the threshold for article notability is eliminated, Wikipedia will become unmanagable. Every joe shmoe will create a article about their own house's uninteresting history, every mildly successful local realtor would create their own self-promotional article, every carwash would create an article about their business, etc. etc. Wikipedia does not and will not have enough competent editors to keep up with all the low-notability articles that would be created, and, therefore, the accuracy of articles would fall down the toilet. It is already hard enough to keep each and every article from becoming unpatrolled and misleading as it is. SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Andrew Yang, the founder of organisation. Because sources mostly are about the founder, not about the organisation.Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the intro calls it an action committee rather then a political party. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not independently notable. Any relevant information belongs on Andrew Yang KidAd • SPEAK 01:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Party has already endorsed a candidate-Wendy Hamilton- [14]. Lots of media coverage that's not just about Yang and it often revolves around the future of the PARTY.2601:152:C80:F40:4B5:C1E1:43E6:AA0D (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot even find a single media source covering that endorsement. That's how non-notable that is. It adds nothing to the party's notability. A (so far) non-consequential endorsement of a single candidate is not a grounds for an article, nor is coverage merely speculating about the future of the party (WP:CRYSTALBALL), which only exists because Yang created the party (if I created the same party and taken the same steps, would it be getting any coverage at this stage, no.) SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of coverage of the endorsement is arguably an indicator that the Forward Party was just a 24-hour news cycle item, and not a notable entity. Not notable, no article, right? JebtheTree (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since this is a PAC that was started by a major former presidential candidate who still has a large following, it shouldn't be judged based on whether it is an official political party yet. It already has notoriety due to its founder, even if it fails or succeeds. At the same time, major news outlines, such as the New York Times in an October 4th article, confirm his attempt to create the Forward Party as an official third party in the United States. -WKHR 21:54, 9 October (UTC)

  It already has notoriety due to its founder. Incorrect. Notability is not inherited. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Heard about this on CNN yesterday. The topic was about the third party, its potential success and its future. Not revolving around Yang, so it's independent.50.210.154.113 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential success" is WP:CRYSTALBALL. And one instance of "independent" coverage does not establish notablity. Hardly an argument for keeping. Also, tried finding CNN videos mentioning it. Only found this one, which clearly only mentions it because of Yang, and pretty much argues it will likely be inconsequential. SecretName101 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Founding of a third party by a notable figure is quite rare and this has received significant media coverage including beyond Yang. The potential for it to be a "spoiler" has also lead to coverage and controversy beyond Yang. See [15], [16], [17] and [18].2601:152:C80:F40:F19C:B993:E9B6:7032 (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is entirely WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:CRYSTAL. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy regarding the party is absolutely a fair point towards its notability and that goes beyond Yang. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The controversy is regarding the spoiler effect, but that is inherently a crystal ball judgement, as we don't know if this PAC will even be registered as a party. Curbon7 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep this page. It is a brand new topic and will mature with time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:546:200:4950:BCD2:FC55:E37F:F564 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My cousin's engagement is also a new subject. Does that grant it notability for a Wikipedia article? If a new subject does not have independent notability, it does not warrant an article. SecretName101 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2021 (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) Enos733 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Hurley[edit]

James L. Hurley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Most sources go to the university website. Unless there is a policy that all university presidents are automatically notable, it's not clear to me why this page is here.--Literaturegirl (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find much sources, and the previous presidents don't have an article and they don't seem to deserve an article. (Dominic F. Dottavio, Dennis P. McCabe. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this was not listed correctly until 6 October, so should not be closed until seven days have elapsed from then. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, there is. WP:PROF #6. "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." The question is whether Tarleton State University falls into that category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty sure a 120-year-old American public university in the TAMU system is considered major. A WP:TROUT to the nom for this one... JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. If you're not sure what the notability policy says you could, you know, look it up? In any case searching for his last name in combination with the names of the schools he has headed finds plenty of news coverage, as one would expect, and justifying the notability criterion in WP:PROF#C6. The ease of finding news sources, in combination with the nominator's claim that "most sources" are primary, suggests that rather than performing WP:BEFORE the nominator only took a cursory look at the article itself. If we're handing out trouts, User:RandomEditorAAA's waxy comment deserves another. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, good job finding purely local sources to save this article! Let's definitely all dump on the nominator instead of really evaluating the article's merit. Consider yourself trout smacked for scraping the bottom of the Google barrel. --Literaturegirl (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you still haven't read the relevant notability guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read the article and then I read the policy, then I read the article, then the policy, then I nominated the article for deletion. But, you're so right. You wise, all-knowledgeable editors are so right. Obviously, I did not understand the policy which says:

Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.

So, yes, I thought that meant the college president had to have some kind of academic achievements. But what I now understand is that this policy protects college presidents with no achievements, except being college presidents, from having their pages deleted. The policy also says, "The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" Applying that test, this academic is entirely non-notable. Where are his books? Where are his scholarly articles, at the very least? And are you actually trying to make me laugh by saying, with an apparently straight face, that Tarleton is a major university? OMG, the Wikipedia spell checker didn't even recognize it.

STOP bullying people who disagree with you. --Literaturegirl (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) And yet there is this extremely straightforward instruction:

Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
...
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

The paragraph you quote applies to academics being assessed solely on C1 impact. I happen to agree that C6 gives a lot of leeway and presidents should really be evaluated the way CEOs are since their appointment is rarely achieved through actual academic impact. However, that is a discussion that must be brought at NPROF for consensus-building, not at individual deletions. The criteria for what constitutes "major" are not well-defined but prior AfDs have mostly affirmed long-standing public universities, especially those in the US, are sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is bullying anyone, but merely saying that due diligence (such as making sure that you understand the relevant guidelines) should be taken with deletion nominations. Is the Board of Regents of the Texas A&M University System in the habit of appointing nobodies to lead universities? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2021 (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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 06:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Creators Cricket Club[edit]

The Creators Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not even a single source. Only written for promotional purpose Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely non notable and promotional in tone. Ajf773 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete potential WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and other voters comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems like obvious promotional spam as much as anything. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A promotional piece of content, WP:ADVERT.Misasory (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2021 (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. Complaints over the WP:POINTY language of the nomination have inhibited participation and productive discussion. While some good faith attempts at policy based arguments were made by TimTempleton and St★lwart111, its unlikely that a clear consensus will develop given the objections over the nomination itself. It would be best to wait a few weeks before re-nominating in order to give conflict time to deescalate. Any future nomination should follow AFD policy and be written with extreme care in language to avoid similar objections and set the groundwork for a productive AFD discussion. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rai Menges[edit]

Pamela Rai Menges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The consensus from all who gave input in the first nomination process was to have the articlespace deleted, as it does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Redacted)

In this second nomination, the subject still lacks notability and WP:SIGCOV. Multi7001 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentNeutral:*Null and void: per the earliet nom. this has been irregularly raised. No objection to a correctly raised third nomination. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I am choosing to recuse from this highly disrupted AfD where the nom. has left allegations about be at the top of the nom. I have seen my !vote collapsed and uncollapsed by good faith people but ultimately if not null and voided will inevitably need DRV where peoples may be WP:TROUTEed. To be clear I have no objection to an immediate 3rd nom. where the immutability of the discussion is respected; and welcome the table suggested by the nom. of a variation thereof to be presented. This AfD perhaps is useful as a training example for the nom. but little other purpose. Please also note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AfD interference and allegations. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of come out of recuse to call for this to be speedy closed .... see below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What's going on here? Typically nominators provide a rationale and sign their nomination. Who is the nominator? pburka (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking, as the nomination has been cleaned up by other editors. pburka (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close or Procedural Close: With recommendation to closer to make it clear there is no objection to immediate renomination. (The hope on such a renomination is the nominator (and others) will not keep changing the nomination after it is posted but follow proper discussion ettiquette). To quote perhaps loosely from the ANI discussion: "The ongoing AfD will not lead to anything worthy, and it has caused and will keep causing people to waste their time. So it's disruptive" & "he first thing to do is to call for speedy close or procedural close from within the AFD". Three points: I have fingers all over this, I may have bias in making this vote; and I tried to do this over 12 hours ago but failed to hit PUBLISH rather than REVIEW and lost the edit. I do expect the the non personal attack source analysis etc. to be brought to any re-nominated AfD; the key reason for call to close to prevent peoples waste of time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not close the AfD. This article has been nominated twice in a short period of time. It's been at AfD almost continuously for the last three weeks. The first AfD closed as "null outcome", which isn't a clear result but certainly wasn't an indication that the article deserved either keeping or deletion. Let's have this discussion here to the end, whether that be "keep", "delete", or "no consensus". I am not expressing a recommendation of my own because I haven't yet started to care either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90 as long as that nominating statement is allowed to remain, any delete result is almost guaranteed to be overturned at DRV for the chilling effect it has on good-faith participation. The only result that will ever stick is keep, rendering this AFD completely pointless. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The correct thing to do here was for somebody to redact the obvious personal attack. The AfD otherwise seems to have a valid rationale (whether it is correct or not), so there is not a valid reason to speedy close this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An out-of-process nomination, two hours after another was closed, with a bunch of (the same) technical mistakes, peppered with personal attacks, lunched to make a point... there's five reasons to close this without thinking too hard. Admins must have pins and needles from all of the sitting-on-hands that has been going on lately. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Having !voted in the previous discussion, I am still mulling this one over. The article's main contributor has added a few sources since the last nomination. With the addition of the sources from Cincinnati Public Radio, we are starting to lean towards sufficient notability. Add in the selection as a NASA NIAC fellow, which was already known, she might begin to qualify either under WP:NSCIENTIST or WP:ANYBIO. I'll think it over for a couple more days, although I think if we could find just one more suitable source (secondary, independent, reliable), I'd feel just fine about changing from last time and keeping this one. As a side note, there seems to be an unusual amount of conflict between the article contributor and nominator. The nominator's insinuations in the opening statement are completely inappropriate and discussions between them both throughout the process have been...uncharitable. My own two cents are that, in order to avoid further conflict, both should avoid commenting on this AfD further and let the process simply carry itself out. -Pax Verbum 05:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As I see it, she just doesn't pass notability test. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - I have avoided actually !voting here because I was of the view that this sort of nonsense shouldn't be entertained, or dignified with a response. To be clear, in addition to the personal attacks and insinuations from the nominator, this nomination was clearly pointy; it was first (incorrectly) nominated for deletion while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc was open and leaning towards merge and redirect to this this article. The first nomination of this article was procedurally closed and this (equally incorrect) nomination was launched in its place two hours later. It is clearly designed to achieve the delete outcome that the nominator advocated for at that related AFD (in addition for providing a opportunity to publish personal attacks). This whole thing is incredibly poor form. Want an actual discussion about notability or an opportunity to fix any issues the article might have? Follow WP:BEFORE and you'll have plenty. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And just in case that isn't enough... good old fashioned keep per WP:ANYBIO for having made a significant contribution to her field. Until recently we had articles for 3 of her contributions to aeronautical engineering including Star Sailor Energy, Artificial neural membrane, and Aerospace Research Systems, Inc. #3 was merged to her article (as above), #1 was preemptively merged to her article, and #2 remains. But the fact remains she has made those contributions to her field and they have been recognised for their significant by her peers who have subsequently interviewed her and written about her to discuss said contribution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sourcing isn't there to demonstrate notability. I did a Google search for additional media coverage, including Google Scholar to see if her papers were cited and we could try with WP:NSCIENTIST, as suggested above, but came up empty. If her companies were notable, they'd be candidates for their own articles, but I can't find decent coverage for them either. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:08, 22 October 2021 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Bowen[edit]

Branden Bowen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Branden Bowen fails WP:NGRIDIRON. He has not played a game in a qualifying league (see: PFR page), nor has he coached in a qualifying capacity. Outside of this, he has received only routine, run-of-the-mill sports coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Failing NGRIDIRON is irrelevant if he meets GNG—which—it appears he does per the following: Corner Canyon Branden Bowen OL, former Utah commit, chooses Ohio State from The Salt Lake Tribune; Ohio State’s Branden Bowen out after third leg surgery from BuckeyeExtra.com (originally The Columbus Dispatch); Branden Bowen to Ohio State: What it means from SB Nation; Who is Branden Bowen? After up-and-down college career, big offensive lineman hopeful to make it in NFL from the Deseret News; Branden Bowen proved he can be asset at NFL level from On3.com; and Buckeyes' Bowen emotional after getting starting role from The Akron Beacon Journal (via Newspapers.com). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond source-by-source:
    1. The article from The Salt Lake Tribune describes his commitment to Ohio State, is in-depth, and is independent. In line with WP:YOUNGATH I'm a bit hesitant to count local coverage of the athlete from that period of time.
    2. The Columbus Dispatch, reprinted on BuckeyeExtra.com appears to be the epitome of WP:ROUTINE sports coverage that describes that the article subject broke his leg.
    3. SportsBlog Nation's Ohio State blog is a blog.
    4. Deseret is reliable for local news and is independent, but it's also not clearly in-depth coverage that would contribute to notability.
    5. On3 appears to be a niche Ohio State sportsblog.

  Taken together, while he's marginal on WP:GNG, I'm not sure that this extent of coverage is enough for notability—especially given the lack of any sort of coverage outside of his home area and the local Columbus area. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BeanieFan11: If you're going to substantially modify your comment after I responded, as you did here, would you please indicate it explicitly in the text that you insert? And, that so-called "The Akron Beacon Journal" source is a reprint of an article from The Columbus Dispatch, which describes how the player is now once again playing football now that his leg is healed. It's more routine hometown coverage of a local college sports team. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11. MainPeanut (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep passes WP:GNG. Not all the sources provided look usable for notability, but enough are to show a pass.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, enough sources to pass GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG per sources provided by BeanieFan. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:36, 17 October 2021 (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 is that WP:GNG is met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Saunders[edit]

C. J. Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. The individual has not played in a professional league game, per the relevant PFR source. Coverage of the article subject outside of this context appears to be routine sports coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether or not he meets NGRIDIRON is irrelevant if he meets GNG—which—it appears he meets per the following: Rhule Praises Young Receivers Including One Who Has Been a Pleasant Surprise from Sports Illustrated; C.J. Saunders Returning to the Field, Taking Aim at NFL Career After Coaching at Ohio State Last Season from ElevenWarriors.com (I don't know if its reliable or not); Ohio State’s Saunders earns respect from teammates from Springfield News-Sun; Walk-on steals the show in Ohio State rout from the Dayton Daily News; The Football Fever: Walk-on C.J. Saunders culminates rise through the ranks from ABC; Rashod Berry, C.J. Saunders seize opportunity in Ohio State’s blowout of UNLV from The Daily Advocate; and Ohio State football’s C.J. Saunders denied sixth year of eligibility, will instead join coaching staff from Cleveland.com. I have also found: C.J. Saunders chasing dream, finds unique Pro Day spotlight (podcast? I don't know if it qualifies under SIGCOV so I'll let someone else decide); Ohio State WR C.J. Saunders arrested for violating curfew from NFLDraftDiamonds.com; and What are the Carolina Panthers getting in C.J. Saunders? from Fansided. Saunders is also currently on an NFL team, as a practice squad member, meaning he may play this season. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To respond source-by-source:

  1. FanNation is significant, independent coverage.
  2. Eleven Warriors is a niche Ohio State sports blog that doesn't appear to be quite WP:RS;
  3. Springfield News-Sun is a local newspaper covering a local college sports (WP:ROUTINE);
  4. The Dayton Daily News is providing routine coverage of a local college sports player scoring a touchdown;
  5. Coverage from a local ABC Affiliate is routine coverage of local college sports;
  6. The Daily Advocate is giving routine coverage of a local college sporting event;
  7. Cleveland.com is providing routine coverage of a local college sports team.
  8. The podcast doesn't appear to be the sort of source that would indicate notability.
  9. NFL Draft Diamonds' coverage of his arrest for violating curfew doesn't actually appear to be WP:SIGCOV of the individual inasmuch as it's WP:DOGBITESMAN-level routine crime reporting (also see WP:NCRIM).
  10. Fansided seems to be providing routine coverage of Carolina's draft picks.

  There seems to be an argument in many of these that he's notable as a college athlete. There's a guideline for this, WP:NCOLLATH, which would lean me away from taking him as notable owing to his college days. Additionally, I don't think that the argument that he's on a practice squad and that he may play this season is a good reason to keep an otherwise non-notable article; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Whether or not coverage is local is irrelevant. 2. This type of coverage is usually considered SIGCOV in American football, meaning he clearly meets GNG. 3. I'm not saying that him being on the practice squad means notability—I'm saying that he meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikehawk10 I just noticed that you nominated this, Matt Behrendt, Liam McCullough, and Branden Bowen all in a period of eight minutes. That is not enough time to do an adequate WP:BEFORE search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep looks like a clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. Some of what's cited above appears to qualify as SIGCOV, and some of the sources are reliable, so this may qualify under GNG. On the other hand, he never had any significant accomplishments as a college player. Per stats, he caught only 16 passes for 294 yards with one touchdown while on the Ohio State roster -- and this despite having had five years of eligibility. Given these minimal accomplishments at the college level (and zero accomplishments at the pro level), I don't see much encyclopedic value. Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11. MainPeanut (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concision (media studies)[edit]

Concision (media studies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined speedy deletion; however, this is not based on any reliable sourcing. The best thing to do here is delete the article and start from scratch IMO Bangalamania (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This Google Scholar search may be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I received a notice about this since I'm technically the article creator (even though all I did was transfer it from the main article), so I ran a few searches. It looks like there's a chapter on the topic in this book (starting pg 165), part of which can be seen in the preview. I also found brief discussions here and here, although they are not the main topic in either case. Sunrise (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Noam Chomsky writes on it here and speaks on it here. There are two quality refs already cited in the article, and plenty more RS in google books and google scholar. The article is not in such bad shape that WP:TNT is warranted. WP:AFD is not cleanup. The solution is to improve through editing.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2021 (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) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jett Craze[edit]

Jett Craze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparent autobiography (see page history) with a bunch of minor edits from AWB users and bots being basically the only edits since it somehow made it past WP:AFC nine years ago. Sources do not establish notability. Didn't find anything better in a search. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-promotional autobiography. Fails GNG. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I looked for anything to update this with and didn't find anything. Search suggests he continued to work on the soundtracks of Sender Film videos, but then the individual film titles didn't pan out. His personal website (listed in the article) shows a self-produced pandemic music video; I can't find any reaction to it. I can't see his Facebook; that's evidently the source of many images that come up on Google search, but I presume the nominator, unlike me, has an account and was able to check it for leads. I can't find evidence of notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's sort of amazing this self-promotional autobiography lasted this long. A BEFORE search reveals nothing but his social media and music download sites. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Netherzone (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, for lack of indepth third party coverage. Having a "large" social media following does not add to notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mascalls corner[edit]

Mascalls corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An intersection with two bus stops, a sports field, and some houses located nearby. There is nothing here worth noting, it's just a generic 3-way intersection. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sourced notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A large german bomber crashed here in WW2 and I am close to getting the required citation 17:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 20:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mascalls School. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My redirect !vote above is because the crossroads is known unofficially as Mascalls Corner, taking its name from Mascalls Farm, which was there long before Mascalls School was built. The school is the nearest object to Mascalls Corner which has a Wikipedia article. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an intersection and a bus stop. https://www.businessyab.com/explore/united_kingdom/england/kent/paddock_wood/mascalls_corner_56657 No sources to meet WP:GEOROAD. Niftysquirrel (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Poulsbo[edit]

Port of Poulsbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot identify sufficient numbers of independent reliable non-local sources covering the topic in depth, indicating it is not notable under WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Izno (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a strange one. Is the Port of Poulsbo just the port (the harbour) for the City of Poulsbo, Washington? If so, then we're talking about a place and should apply WP:GEOLAND, right? By way of an example, the city of Newcastle, Australia is a city, and the Port of Newcastle is the seaport within Newcastle Harbour. In turn, it is operated by the Newcastle Port Authority. The authority needs to pass WP:GNG (or WP:NCORP, depending on your proclivities), but the city, port and port authority are all different entities. In this instance we have both a Poulsbo Yacht Club and Poulsbo Port Commission (two other organisations involved). St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I saw evidence that the use of the phrase "Port of Poulsbo" might refer to an actual port, but I don't really think that matters because I'm pretty sure the current article about a specific marina. The current article doesn't say what it is in the lead, but there is a "Port of Poulsbo Marina" a bit into the article, and the user who created it seems to have been interested in marinas. Either way, what's there and what I saw in the reliable sources didn't indicate that this particular topic as-written is something worth preserving. I think it might be reasonable to delete and red link it for a possible new article or possibly redirect to the city for expansion later. Izno (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The article might be about a marina but it doesn't reference a specific company that runs it and the content should probably be focused on the location. Incidental reference can be made to any organisation involved, but I don't think the subject here needs to pass WP:NCORP; it's a place, not a company. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Izno, just to be clear, I've seen your other nominations of non-notable commercial marina operations and believe you're right in each of those instances. I think this article just happened to get it wrong. They may have intended to write about the marina (within the port) but have written about the port itself, which I think is notable. Port of Poulsbo Marina would not be notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. I've done some work to clarify that the article is about the geographical location and not any particular commercial enterprise responsible for its management. Its owner, from what I can tell, is the city of Poulsbo itself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". The port is a legally recognised place (in fact, it has a specific, City-appointed commission), and the sources confirm it is populated, both on land, and with "liveaboards". St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article describes the entity/organization, as the geographic location is not independently notable. It's a bog-standard public marina that has one notable article in The Seattle Times but otherwise only routine mentions. SounderBruce 07:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It did (incorrectly). It doesn't anymore. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Wikipedia:HEY) per GEO, satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as improved. BD2412 T 06:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is a notable geographic location.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2021 (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. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus to keep, and no reason to expect that further extending the discussion will lead to any different outcome. BD2412 T 06:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden Hotel, Guangzhou[edit]

The Garden Hotel, Guangzhou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:NGEO. It's nothing more than advertisement. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Expensive hotels like this one are usually notable (not because they're expensive, but because they get written about, in part because of the high-profile events and individual guests they host), and at least some of the references in the article are probably acceptable. Style issues can be resolved by editing. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant hotel in China. As the official hotel of the 2010 Asian Games. Sun8908 _Talk 11:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sun8908 and Eastmain -GorgonaJS (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being "significant" or expensive is not a criteria for notability. I could not find significant third party coverage. Most of the cited references are merely about non notable industry awards. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable events caused that to be notable. First paragraph of article alongside with the sources establish the hotel's notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while the article reads like an advertisment, the way to resolve this is through editing not deletion. A major hotel in a major city that has hosted large events. I've added a couple of references. NemesisAT (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. 赵安然; 黄婷婷 (2015-08-25). "广州花园酒店将迎30周年店庆 当初曾目标世界前十" [The Garden Hotel, Guangzhou, will celebrate its 30th anniversary: once targeted as the top ten in the world]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via Sina Corporation.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "The exterior design of the Garden Hotel came from the world-renowned architect I.M. Pei. This is the only time I. M. Pei, who was born in Guangzhou, has designed a building in Guangzhou. Pei, who is good at using glass, set up a round arched awning at the front entrance of the Garden Hotel, and a checkered ceiling made up of metal strips. Each is embedded with glass bricks, and the sunlight during the day and the light at night are reflected by 1320 glass bricks. Next, the hotel is dazzling."

     The article further notes from Google Translate: "Pei later recommended the Hong Kong architect Situ Hui to preside over the main design of the Garden Hotel to Li Mingze. The interior design of the hotel is as close to Pei’s modernist design style as possible. Situ Hui used Foshan’s traditional marble murals to embellish them. The stone murals later became important works of art in the Garden Hotel. Among them, the front of the hotel lobby The 150-square-meter large-scale gold-inlaid mural "A Dream of Red Mansions" is the most famous. Mr. Jin Yong once commented: "If you enter the Grand View Garden, you will be in the Rongguo Mansion.""

  2. 刘星彤; 杨广 (2015-09-07). "广州花园酒店开业30周年 辉煌三十载变革创未来" [The 30th Anniversary of the Opening of The Garden Hotel, Guangzhou: Brilliant 30 years of change to create the future]. Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11 – via Phoenix Television.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "As the first batch of high-end hotels built by domestic foreign investment after China's reform and opening up, the Guangzhou Garden Hotel was jointly initiated by Liao Chengzhi, former vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and Hong Kong celebrity Li Mingze, with a total investment of nearly one billion Hong Kong dollars. Preparations for the hotel began in 1979. The concept design was carried out by the internationally renowned architect and designer Pei I.M. Yang Shangkun, then secretary of the Guangzhou Municipal Party Committee and former state chairman, laid the foundation, and a generation of great man Deng Xiaoping wrote the name of the store by himself. On August 28, 1985, the Guangzhou Garden Hotel was fully opened; in July 1990, it was rated as a five-star hotel for foreigners by the National Tourism Administration, becoming one of the earliest five-star hotels in my country; in July 2007, it was rated as a five-star platinum star in China Class hotel; In 2010, it became the official headquarters hotel of the 16th Guangzhou Asian Games."

  3. 王晓易, ed. (2016-06-19). "广州花园酒店" [The Garden Hotel, Guangzhou] (in Chinese). NetEase. Archived from the original on 2021-10-11. Retrieved 2021-10-11.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Guangzhou Garden Hotel, opened in 1985, is currently the largest five-star business hotel in China. Its birth and development have been enthusiastically supported by leaders at all levels of the central, provincial and municipal levels, and celebrities from Hong Kong, Macau, and at home and abroad. It is hailed as the fruit of reform and opening up and a model of Sino-foreign cooperation."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Garden Hotel, Guangzhou (simplified Chinese: 广州花园酒店; traditional Chinese: 廣州花園酒店) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2021 (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 WP:SNOW delete, borderline speedy. BD2412 T 06:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Groton Line[edit]

The Groton Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

seems to be just a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/thegrotonline/, no references in article Doprendek (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Absolutely no indication of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Too local to ever likely achieve notabiity either. SpinningSpark 19:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find even one source about the subject. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This publication is notable only on a local level. I could find nothing beyond a Facebook page for the Groton Line and a Twitter account for the editor.TH1980 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oiketerion[edit]

Oiketerion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A (low quality) dictionary definition, with insufficient potential to be expanded to an article. The claim that this Greek term means "the body as a dwelling place for the spirit" in one specific rather unclear Biblical passage represents an unverifiable religious viewpoint^[19] that is not particularly supported by the actual source text and is not reflected in many translations, which translate it as simply meaning "a home".^{[20][21][22][23][24]} Deprodded without explanation.  --Lambiam 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This book describes the concept in exactly those terms. I'm also seeing several non-RS sources with similar material. SpinningSpark 20:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this source it represents a sense ostensibly inspired by the author's religious viewpoint, not one present in the sense in which it is used everywhere else except in this particular Bible verse. So this might be used as original research to establish that some Christian authors read a spiritual sense in an otherwise commonplace Greek word. This might belong in an article with a title like Religious interpretations of the term oiketerion, if we can find secondary sources discussing this. You can find such discussions for many Greek terms in Paul's letters, such as for apostasia,^[25] often in untransliterated form like for the term κατέχων,^[26] but I did not see a similar discussion for oiketerion.  --Lambiam 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article 2 Corinthians may seem a plausible place to retain the material content, but even there it is IMO undue.  --Lambiam 08:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that notability is weak, hence my weak keep. My point was only that this is not an "unverifiable religious viewpoint" as claimed in your nom. It is a viewpoint that can be verified. On the name, ideally there should be a bracketed disambiguator like Oiketerion (biblical concept). The problem there is that WP:QUALIFIER prevents the use of disambiguators on pages that don't need disambiguating. That could be solved by creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary. 2 Corinthians is definitely an UNDUE place to put it for something so weakly supported. The ideal target would be the religous belief system from which this arose, which I'm afraid I can't identify. SpinningSpark 09:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that in this context the Greek term represents the body of the resurrected believer – some go as far as to state that it "clearly" does so^[27] – is not verifiable. This unverifiable claim is informed by a religious viewpoint. The sources that state this represent a non-authoritative religious viewpoint. The fact that this viewpoint, abstracting from its validity, exists is obvious. It is less obvious that – apart from the question whether reporting this would give undue weight to it – this can be established without venturing into the realm of original research. How is this observation not an analysis by us of primary-source material?  --Lambiam 14:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get what point you are driving at. Of course it's not verifiable in the scientific experimental sense. No religious belief is, but that's not the kind of verifiability Wikipedia needs. And what makes a religious viewpoint authoritative, they all lack any kind of authority as far as I am concerned. If the article was claiming this was the view of the Anglican Church that would be different. An authoritive source for that is conceivable. But the article makes no such claim, only the weasely "...has been interpreted..." SpinningSpark 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to make a point, but merely to clarify what I meant in the nomination by the words "unverifiable religious viewpoint", which referred to a specific claim about the meaning of the Greek term as used in the Bible. That claim was quite explicitly made in an earlier version of the article, the one I originally prodded. None of the three supplied references cited a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense). Yet this very claim is the only possible argument for notability; if you remove it, nothing of potential encyclopedic interest remains.  --Lambiam 17:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I don't think we have too much to disagree on. I agree that without the claim on the Biblical meaning the page is not suitable as a Wikipedia article (per NOTDICTIONARY) and that if that claim cannot be cited then it should be deleted. But since I did find a source directly supporting the claim (actually, I found three book sources, but two of them come from self-publishing houses) then I'm still at weak keep. SpinningSpark 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See "οἰκητήριον" und verwandte Worte auf christlichen Grabschriften and 2 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) for examples of scholarship on the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Right now the article is a pure DICTDEF. Sourcing presented here is very weak (the second source is in German and was presented without any analysis or indication the editor who found it even reads German, and there is no evidence it meets WP:SIGCOV). The third source does not seem to meet SIGCOV either, but there is a possibility of merging and redirecting to Second Epistle to the Corinthians, perhaps? Ping me if better sources are found and I'll revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- No objection to renaming to Oiketerion (biblical concept). The classification of several references as "unreliable" is in fact WP:OR by a WP editor. Lenski (who is cited) is a respectable author of commentaries, which I have seen cited. Thayer (quoted verbatim) in biblicalapps (ref 5) was a leading biblical lexicographer (of Cambridge, Mass), originally published in 1835. My own copy is a 1977 edition, printed in 1983; I just checked it. As the word appears in two places in the New testament merging it to either would be inappropriate and would probably unbalance the target article. There is probably scope for expansion, discussing the theological concept involved. I am therefore removing the "unreliable" tags. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peterkingiron: — Please note that these references were added after my nomination of the article here.  --Lambiam 20:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for checking if the sources are unreliable or not, but we still need to show they contain a discussion of the topic that meets SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All concepts discussed in the Bible can be assummed to be notable, because they are covered in earlier specialized encyclopedias. DGG ( talk ) 09:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The term is used in the Bible, which is not the same as being discussed. The term ταμεῖον (tameion) is used four times in the Bible, for example in Luke 12:24. Can you identify an "earlier specialized encyclopedia" covering this concept?  --Lambiam 20:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing indicates that this is anything more than a dictionary entry, let alone a "biblical concept" (whatever that means) with inherent notability. Andrew D's first source seems to be more a catalog of that and related words (not just 'oiketerion') in funerary inscriptions than actual scholarship discussing this specific term. The second is a passing mention which amounts to a dictionary definition. The other sources are also basic dictionary entries. Textbook failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. wikt:οἰκητήριον is already enough to cover the subject, an encyclopedia article isn't needed. Avilich (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can this be just redirected to Wiktionary for now? There is not enough content here.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete /send to Wikitionary - this is a dictionary definition and nothing more. Not encyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  /Greek wiktionary - if this is just a Greek word with no demonstrable higher significance, be gone! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2021 (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 via CSD by User:Deb as created in violation of a previous block or ban. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaagneshwaran Ganesh[edit]

Yaagneshwaran Ganesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No Significant coverage about this person that addresses the topic directly and in details. All of sources are either passing mentions or press release or primary (written by the subject). Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Also this is a paid article (see author userpage). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and trimThe article contains eight references. Among them two are editorial articles. Here are the links "BusinessWorld" and "The week". These two are Wikipedia approved, I believe. Simplewikipedian (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your opinion but it is a paid article, created by you. I think you have WP:COI here. Anyway, There is no secondary sources. All of article sources are primary (probably paid news, nothing substantial, mostly an interview masquerading as an article). Also they aren't WP:RS --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

আফতাবুজ্জামান it does appear that Simplewikipedian has a WP:PAID disclosure for this article on their user page for this article, but they also failed to follow COI policy because this was created directly into the main space and was not submitted as a draft for review. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both appear to be PR or paid pieces. I cannot imagine an objective article would include lines such as "The ABM Conversations Podcast rightfully ranks in the top 1% of podcasts globally". Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There's consensus here that this article in its current form is not appropriate for mainspace, but that it could be fixable. Moving to draftspace per several suggestions. Hog Farm _Talk 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of hate crimes in the United Kingdom[edit]

List of hate crimes in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article with an incomplete list of five different murders in the UK associated with racism, sexism, etc. rather than a general list of hate crimes, which would never be complete since they happen every day. Although I believe there's a chance it could be rewritten, reformatted, and moved to a better title, or perhaps even draftified, the best choice might just be to delete since WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -GorgonaJS (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH. There is no clear criteria as to how any of these fit the definition of a hate crime. Ajf773 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject requires no stand alone list on Wikipedia. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Racially motivated violence in the United Kingdom exist. If you only listed cases with their own articles and these articles confirmed it was a hate crime, then it'd be a valid list. Otherwise, no point to it. Dream Focus 08:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - without a clear, editor-friendly inclusion criterion, this content should not be this list in mainspace. At present, the article is shaping up OK, though: each example is tied to how it has added to the evolving concept of hate crime in the UK. I'd like to encourage this process to continue in draft space: while I doubt that it will emerge from the AfC process as this list, I think it may produce valuable content for the encyclopedia. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - I agree with what Charles Stewart (talk) says. This article could be an excellent addition to Wikipedia but it eneds mroer work to brig it up to the standard required. therefore putting it into draftspace, rather than deleting it, is the way to do this. Rillington (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Until it gets better. Otherwise I am fine with deletion. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify, as this appears to be a notable topic, but it needs well defined criteria.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Associative model of data[edit]

Associative model of data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As someone who understands database theory and data models, I concur that this article is both:

• Misinformed. It makes various incorrect claims about the relational data model.
• An advertisement for a book. It's clear the author is trying to persuade readers to read his work.

In addition to being misinformed, the research discussed on this page is not notable. These ideas have seen no adoption or proliferation outside the author's own book. So I suggest this page be deleted. (-Nick) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.69.172 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete COI page created in 2005 and not substantially improved since then, about a topic that has not had significant uptake beyond the writings of its inventor. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article gathered 8 GScol hits. The abstract of the article begins "Lazy Software has created the Associative Model of Data,™ the first entirely new database architecture since the advent of the Internet. Its product Sentences™ is a multi-user, web-enabled database management system written in Java, and is the first commercial implementation of the Associative Model. Using Sentences, customers can design and develop sophisticated database applications more quickly and with less technical know-how than has previously been possible." Sadly, the journal that gem was published in, The Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, is no longer with us, folding after just 11 years. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: Last night, I saw a pdf copy of the book by Simon Williams. Some of the text in this article is a clear copyright breach, and is just copied from that. Then confusion has been added to it. But the book is not that great, and I will mention issues below. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article was clearly written as promotional, either promoting the author's book or the author's ideas. However, it is not entirely true that the idea has seen no adoption by others. Two sources not authored by Williams are listed in the external links section. The Han paper is a masters degree dissertation and therefore not considered peer reviewed. The Homan and Kovacs paper was published in the journal Issues in Information Systems. SpinningSpark 22:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The initial statement by the IP that the articles "makes various incorrect claims about the relational data model" is too mild. I have the feeling the author of this article received their PhD in database analysis at the Trump University, but I can not officially confirm that, not being able to contact the university right now. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked through a pdf copy of the book by Simon Williams. It has some consistent history of the subject (obtained from obvious text books) but the basic claims are a rehash of the Entity–relationship model. This further confirms my delete vote. Given that the noteworthy page Entity–relationship model is in desperate need of help itself, no point in spending multiple users' efforts talking about this page. Just delete forever and be done. Ode+Joy (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although not as emphatic as Ode+Joy perhaps, since there might be some contribution from the sources at the intersection of entity-relationship model and a real database management system implementation. Maybe put a sentence or two in the ER model article about this terminology at best. W Nowicki (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@W Nowicki: The pdf I saw was self published by Lazy Software. I looked on Amazon and not clear who the publisher is. If you somehow get the real book and want to add a few paragraphs please do, but it can not be done in a sentence or two. The long and short of it is that this is an exhumation of the CODASYL model painted with an ER surface. I am pretty sure no single implementation of this is used in any Fortune 2000 company. If there is something to be fixed, it is the page for CODASYL model itself. It is pretty weak. Ode+Joy (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment:Keep: - But should probably be moved to Associative Data Model where hits are more prevalant. I am assuming Associative Data Model and Associative Model of Data. If there are sourcable reasons why the thing is rubbish or a variant of whatever then have them in the article. But inappropriate to removed completely. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt that a capitalised title is appropriate here. It is not for others to provide sources that this is rubbish, it is for those who want to keep it (ie, only you so far) to provide sources showing notability which so far, is very weak. SpinningSpark 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its weak. I've been tracking this for some time, to a degree waiting to get space to make a better, fuller, explanation and source analysis. But time seems short for me and its appropriate for me to make my comments known. On the external links of the article (Minghui, 2001) uses the term Associate Data Model and (Homan, Kovacs, 2009) use the term Associate Database Model in their titles. Its for a clerker to analyse the situation. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the Minghui Han paper is a masters thesis and thus not considered peer reviewed. SpinningSpark 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware I am in overload and I apologise for not noticing your earlier comment on (Minghui, 2001). I did pcik it up as already on the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed !vote for present until I re-assess, if I bother to. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2021 (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 WP:SNOW keep. Come back in a few weeks or months when everyone are more detached from it happening to see if people still think we should keep the article. Until then, the results are unlikely to change due to recency bias. KTC (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Facebook outage[edit]

2021 Facebook outage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Surely at this point this is textbook WP:NOTNEWS: a little bit on the main Facebook article, sure, but I'm not sure this outage merits its own article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep It certainly doesn't merit a deletion discussion – see policies WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RAPID and so we can wait for notability to emerge. wizzito | say hello! 14:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Longest outage ever, huge impact on millions of users (also financially) Coldbolt (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When BBC News has a dedicated piece to the event, that suggests notability. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an outage that affected not only millions of users around the world, but Facebook itself, which lost over $7 billion in damages. Major news sources around the world covered the event, and its disturbance on users' abilities to communicate made it a trending topic on Twitter. Definitely keep. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A small event in terms of time - a few hours - but a globally significant one: not just measured in terms of the amount of Reliable Sources talking about it, but also becuase it's arguably one of the greatest single-event disruptions to human communication in history. This is not adequately addressed in the article (yet) - and will probably take a week or so for opinion-articles to be published - but never before has a single issue caused such widespread disruption to the ability of people to communicate, as this. Wittylama 14:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep per editor Wittylama. For an event that lasted less than a day, the global disruption was indeed unprecedented. Even as early as 7pm UTC yesterday, it had already generated enough coverage to pass WP:GNG many times over. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This single outage impacted millions of users across at least 4 services and has been termed unprecedented. It shouldn't just be swept under the rug. Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 5 October 2021 (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 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Japan)[edit]

Leader of the Opposition (Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The Japanese political system does not provide for the position of 'Leader of the Opposition'. There are numerous opposition parties in Japan, and there is no official discrimination between them. The article claims that the Japanese name of this supposed post is '野党の指導者', but this doesn't make much sense in Japanese, and I can find no evidence of its use anywhere. Japan does not have a Westminster form of government, and there is no 'convention' that produces a Leader of Opposition in Japan. Basically, this article is original research, and should be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, it looks made up. If you search for 野党の指導者 (which is just a generic expression for "leader of a non-government party") the first page of hits are all about countries other than Japan (Russia, mostly). Plainly, therefore, this is not a commonly used term in Japanese, and the fact that there is not WP:ja page supports this being original research. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Khetan[edit]

Kamal Khetan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Businessman does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from Sunteck Realty Limited. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notability. Agree with nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tubayo[edit]

Tubayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable travel agency that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search only links me to user generated sources, self published sources & a plethora of press releases/ mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing here remotely shows notability. BD2412 T 06:25, 12 October 2021 (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 12:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronchess Group[edit]

Ronchess Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A borderline G11'able article sourced mostly to the company's website, directories, interviews and trivial mentions. A WP:BEFORE search does not bring up enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. Princess of Ara 12:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 12:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 12:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Fiona Kennedy. Sandstein 06:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Clark[edit]

Fiona Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable author and educator. Article should be deleted under WP:BLPPROD except that there was an existing redirect prior to the redirect being hijacked for this page. Recommend restoring redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Redirect Agree with nominator, this individual does not meet notability requirements and the article reads more like an autobiography than an encyclopedia.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirection from Fiona Clark (photographer) was removed as this page exists as an article its own right. Did not mean to hijack that page, apologies for this error. Just simply suggesting Fiona Clark as a standalone article (not linked in any way to Fiona Clark (photographer). Please consider this option. Alternatively the heading could be changed to Fiona Clark (author)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolly4321 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolly4321: The point here is that there is not sufficient evidence that Fiona Clark (the author about whom you have written) merits inclusion at Wikipedia. You'll need to convince us otherwise. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Clark's body of work in education, spanning 25 years, has becoming increasingly prolific among scholars, students and academics at universities and other places of learning, so much so, that an article in Wikipedia would assist these learners and educators in their citation and provide a reference point for clarification. Her work stretches internationally, not only with the published work, but also her collaborations in Japan with Lead Teacher and presenter Naomi Toland; in the USA with leading psychologist Martin Seligman; and among educational settings in the UK. University College London invited Fiona to collaborate on a Knowledge Exchange Programme when they discovered the important research she is conducting regarding the impact of creativity on the brain to help regulate emotion and behaviour, and improve the person's overall wellbeing. This is linked with Dr Daisy Fancourt's work in the same field - and has become significant in helping heal children and adults suffering from mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolly4321 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolly4321: We'll need proof of your assertions in the form of independent coverage in reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia's guidance on notability of people to understand who merits inclusion at Wikipedia, and how that notability is verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing to substantiate notability of this writer and educator. Fails WP criteria to meet WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. The unsourced biographical detail in the article combined with the headshot photo uploaded by the article creator suggests this may be a COI entry. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NAUTHOR as there do not seem to be any reviews of her books in notable outlets or any awards that she has won. --hroest 19:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above comment about reviews of books, please scroll down to the 'MEDIA REVIEWS' for A Practical Guide to Creative Writing in Schools (Routledge, 2021) on this page from Waterstones bookseller. https://www.waterstones.com/book/a-practical-guide-to-creative-writing-in-schools/fiona-clark/9780367562649

Biographical detail sourced from Speaking of Books website https://speakingofbooks.co.uk/training-inset-workshop-providers/

However, if this article fails to meet the criteria, and the author is not notable, please feel free to delete the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolly4321 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly4321 The waterstones link you provided is not what WP considers to be a reliable source that is independent from the subject. Rather, it is a user-submitted "review" on a webpage to sell books; which is analogous to a "review" on Amazon. What would be considered an independent reliable source would be a book review featured in a peer-reviewed journal; newspaper article, or the like. See: WP:RS for more information. The other link seems to be an event or speaker booking website. Could you please tell us if you have a connection to Fiona Clark? The reason I ask is that it seems that you took the photograph of her headshot used in the article. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time on this. All of your points have helped to clarify my understanding of what is required for an article. As mentioned above, please delete the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolly4321 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see any approach to passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete and then recreate redirect fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore redirect. I found news coverage for New Zealand photographer Fiona Clark, entertainment executive Fiona Clark, Ecuadorian-Irish film festival director Fiona Clark, and founder of McGill Community for Lifelong Learning Fiona Clark. I found news reports by financial reporter Fiona Clark, and multiple scholarly book reviews for Victims, Perpetrators or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence, co-edited by independent scholar Fiona C. Clark, and for Ireland and Medicine in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: The History of Medicine in Context, co-edited by Fiona Clark, a historian of medicine at Queen's University Belfast. These searches did not turn up any coverage of or reviews for psychologist and children's book author Fiona Clark, the subject of the nominated article. Perhaps there are too many other more-notable Fionas Clark making the searches difficult; there is still time for someone to demonstrate notability. But with no evidence of notability in the article itself, none in the earlier comments here, and none in my searches, the conclusion is clear. We could probably make a dab page instead of a redirect, but not unless/until someone creates articles on the some of the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]