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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn per nominator request. (non-admin closure) Mlb96 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser's Fury[edit]

Bowser's Fury (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'm not convinced this article has any merit as a stand alone title. Suggestion is to bundle the information included within this page with Super Mario 3D World. SkippyKR (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SkippyKR (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale. There's plenty of sources present affirming this is notable for a standalone article. JOEBRO64 23:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll expand on the rational. (please excuse me, this is my first AfD) Bowser's Fury was never sold as a stand alone game, rather bundled with a re-release of 3D World during the 35th anniversary event. While the re-release is notable, certainly, the Bowser's Fury title is not particularly notable independently of 3D World. It's akin to DLC for the original title, released 8 years after the original release. SkippyKR (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a deletion rationale or based on policy. Tons of DLC, Expansion Packs, remasters and remakes are notable and have their own articles. Several of the sources are specifically about Bowser's Fury alone, separate from 3D World. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, appreciate the explanation. SkippyKR (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep No actual deletion rationale presented. The article is chock full of sources that are reliable and indepth. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above comments. Might want to consider closing this discussion since the following votes will likely be speedy keep too. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I mean, I agree that it may not need to have a standalone article, but it's more of a merge question than deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what I was attempting to suggest. I perhaps have submitted incorrectly if there is another option for this type of request. SkippyKR (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose withdrawing this AfD. SkippyKR (talk) 02:08, 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 keep. ✗plicit 23:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chitrangada Singh (princess)[edit]

Chitrangada Singh (princess) (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:N and WP:NOT — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources which mention her are impeccable. There is much more in Steven Weisman's NY Times article mentioned in Further Reading, which has not been used. She is the older sister of a man who is being touted as the "scion" of the princely family of Scindia. But princely privileges, titles, and pensions were abolished by the 26th amendment to the Indian constitution, and the law in India is no longer patrilineal. It would be very convenient for the royalists which in this case seem to be the Hindu majoritarians to not have her as an inconvenient presence. No dice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royalist?/Hindu majoritarians?, And where did that come from? It seems you've your personal beef with Hindus which you don't need to bring in here by making a non-issue an issue. This deletion request is based purely on the question of notability. What's her credentials besides being a sister of Jyotiraditya Scindia? Is she an elected MLA/MP or has any renowned public profile? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 13:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is generally not a good idea to make ad hominem attacks against another Wikipedia editor. You could get into trouble if I report you. I don't have any "personal beef" with Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or atheists.

Second, your description of her, "What is she besides being a sister of (a younger brother)," however, is in line with the widespread ideology in Hinduism of highlighting only the patriline. The ideology—going back more than two thousand years—appears alive and well on Wikipedia pages as well when any mention of her (a female) is de-emphasized or goes unmade because she is an inconvenient presence: see here and here.

Third if someone's wedding appears at great length in reports of United Press International (UPI), Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, India Today, ... their wedding continues to be mentioned in newspaper stories, such as in The Economic Times, on marriage patterns of Indian ex-royals, and if their wedding is also described at great length in a book for young adults The House of Scindias: A Saga of Power, Politics, and Intrigue, Roli Books, 2021, which states, "Swedish Radio correspondent, Gisela Widmer, who was part of the large foreign press corps present at the occasion, said, 'It is amazing how such a large crowd retained its enthusiasm in spite of being confronted by such differences in wealth.' Sheila Tefft, who was present at Gwalior, wrote in the Chicago Tribune that three days of lavish festivities reportedly cost US$4 million and stirred a national controversy because India, at that point of time, was economic hard times and the worst drought in years." How is she not notable (both famous and infamous) by Wikipedia's rules unless, of course, women need to be slighted, even erased, in the male-dominated pages of Indian ex-royals? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:BLP1E. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That link states that each of three conditions need to be met, the third of which is: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."

But her wedding was one of the most widely covered events in the social life of Indian ex-royals—both descendants of 21-gun salute states—in India. I don't believe there is another similar event that was covered by the major news agencies (UPI, and AP) and in long articles by the major international newspapers and radio services: LA Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Japan Times, The Times London, Swedish Radio, ... and a host of Indian newspapers. She is also somewhat notable (though not famous) in the hospitality industry, being a co-manager of two heritage hotels in India. I will edit her page later today to reflect that part of her biography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On re-thoughts and reading some critical commentary (I will add them), I am switching to keep. It is better that there remains a documentation of all these royal figures continuing their history of oppression - actively or passively. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Can you explain the "oppression - actively or passively" in 1987, the year of the marriage—nearly 16 years after the 26th amendment of the Constitution of India which ended princely privileges? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I did not receive your ping (?) but consult The Hindu of the day after marriage, for one.

The surreality of holding an exuberant wedding when millions were affected by a severe drought including in the very district, where the marriage was held. The ugliness of India's economic disparity at its finest. I am pretty certain that multiple sources of that time made this point. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Fowler. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as she was a significant part of a significant event.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:16, 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) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ali Abboud[edit]

Mohammed Ali Abboud (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:NFOOTY, as he has not played in a fully-pro league or for a senior national team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator's comment: the player had made his senior international debut on 7 October 2021 against Lebanon (the article didn't reflect that). I will close the nomination as a speedy keep. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:57, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 23:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karrar Amer[edit]

Karrar Amer (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:NFOOTY, as he has not played in a fully-pro league or for a senior national team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. While the Iraqi Premier League isn't fully professional, this player has recently been included in the national squad and, aged 25, could potentially play at international level in the near future. I think it might be WP:TOOSOON to delete. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard McLeod[edit]

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

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

Typical promotional article, ref-bombed, yet lacking good secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Alas, I have no expertise in the subject area so will have to defer to others with regard to WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clear pass of WP:NPROF#C1 with this citation record. He is a fellow of a number of organization, which may count for criteria #3, but I did not assess as this is a clear pass on citations.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You see that "held a Fred Eshelman Endowed Chair" in the article as nominated? That means he passes WP:PROF#C5. If you're not willing to read or understand the relevant notability guideline you should not be creating deletion nominations in the subjects it covers. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very sorry, David Eppstein, but sometimes it is not so easy to sort the wheat from the chaff when an article has a deal of puffery. And is this really an endowed chair? The cited source, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy has "McLeod is a Fred Eshelman Distinguished Professor", from which one infers that there are multiple such professorships in the Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Are all chairs there endowed? How is one to know? Edwardx (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Edwardx: per [1] he was "appointed the Fred Eshelman Distinguished Professor" at UNC, this passes NPROF#5 as distinguished professors pass. Like you, I also managed to miss the distinguished professor/chair in a first reading the article in the midst of the promotional text, however McLeod also ticks other NPROF boxes that are easily checked (e.g. the citation record) - so I did not check other criteria too much after satisfying the first. There is also some in depth media coverage (e.g. [2][3] is recent in depth coverage of a funding scandal). The article does need work on reducing puffery and including the 2020 coverage, the creation at the beginning of 2021 omitting this raises some questions - but in terms of AfD it is a pretty clear keep.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eostrix Thank you. I am in no way disputing that it is a clear keep on either C1 or C5, merely trying to explain that nominating this for AfD was not wholly unreasonable. I seem to spend more and more of my limited wiki time dealing with promotional content, and not enough creating new content, so one is bound to be too hasty once in a while. And omitting the funding scandal is another indicator of the possibility of COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NPROF C1 and C3 (at least). It wasn't immediately clear to me when nominated that the McLeod in the article matched the McCleod with the high citations, and given the other signs of promotionalism, I don't think it was unreasonable to run by AfD. (But it sounds like we all agree now that it's a better candidate for cleanup than for deletion.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to a large number of citations.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:14, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Cartee[edit]

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

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

Renominating because in the last (non-admin closed) AfD, the only keep argument was that Cartee met criterion #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. This policy affirms that a musician may be notable if he has performed music for a work of media that is notable. This doesn't hold up because the article doesn't say Cartee performs music at all. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not alert the author of this discussion because I suspect they are connected to all the previous AfD's !keep voters. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a bit hard to say that WP:MUSICBIO applies to music engineers (because it does not explicitly mention them). This fellow appears to have a solid background and industry appreciation as an engineer. References are better than a lot of other articles I have seen for music engineers. Meets WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sound engineers do not pass MUSICBIO by definition. This biography fails WP:GNG. The six references are not good at all. The first three ([4][5][6]) are promotional PR. The last three ([7][8][9] barely mention Cartee (he's in a list).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It may be time for an RfC on what notability requirements apply for music engineers and producers, rather than going through a bunch of AfD nominations of music engineers where nobody can agree what the consensus is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been starting AfDs of audio engineers in my spare time because I found that many of them appeared promotional. Those that have been deleted thus far were poorly sourced, and appeared promotional for structural reasons. Because of the lack of reliable coverage about their lives, the articles focused on their production credits. Such articles are essentially advertisements: "This guy worked with a bunch of notable artists, you should hire him". Mottezen (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Producers are covered by WP:PRODUCER. The current consensus is that NMUSIC doesn't cover audio engineers, though if somebody starts an RfC to change that, I'll stop nominating audio engineers for deletion during the time it runs. Mottezen (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Eostrix's convincing source analysis. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is an audio engineer? It's not a person with an engineering degree. It's someone who is hired to work in a studio "engineering" a recording. I have done some minor recording engineering, so I know what it is: sitting behind a mixing board and computer adjusting levels, equalization and mixing of the tracks. They might also add effects like reverb to tracks. they are essentially equipment operators who adjust the amplitude and frequency characteristics of the parts of a recording. It's a run of the mill job. Audio "engineering" not the kind of "engineering" we might look at for a engineering professor who is on the tenure-track at a university. Even those accredited engineers, of which there are hundreds of thousands, are not typically notable under WP:NPROF, as we have high standard there. For this non-accredited recording engineer, I would expect that they would need to have some large accomplishments to meet GNG. There would have to be good coverage, or significant awards, and there seems to be very little of those here. the fact that they worked on adjusting levels for a famous musician's recording just does not cut it, unless good pubs have written about that work. In short, this is just a guy doing his job, who has attracted a small amount of low-quality coverage. There is nothing particularly notable about his accomplishments, and this is attested to by the lack of coverage in reliable sources. --- Possibly ☎ 22:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why you have brought up NPROF, nobody in this discussion has suggested that audio engineers are a discipline of chartered engineers. I have worked in the industry too, so I know perfectly well that they are not. It is, however, recognised that the engineer can contribute significantly to the creative content of a recording and can become very notable for it. That's how come we have category:audio engineers and why PRODUCER is the relevant guideline here. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not making an argument either way for this particular engineer. SpinningSpark 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is no argument that can be made to !keep this article based of WP:PRODUCER. The list of artists that the article claims this person worked with is total bullshit. We can see here that he appears in the credits of a single song of a mixtape by DJ Esco that includes songs originally created by the artists listed in the lede of the article. That seems to be where this list comes from. None of the other credits can be verified, as this guy isn't even listed in the AllMusic database. Mottezen (talk) 05:31, 18 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 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Standard International School of Dhaka[edit]

American Standard International School of Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Primary and unreliable source. No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could someone please search for Bengali-language references that could be added to this article? Searching for references in the appropriate language is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two of the cited sources are not fully described enough to be verifiable. From the sound of them, if they have been published at all, they were published by the school. The remainder are directory listings or home pages of organizations mentioned in the article which don't mention the school. Searches of the usual types found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:26, 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. Consensus is clear the article should be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral[edit]

Surroundings of Cologne Cathedral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Google translated without human review, created by a now-indeffed user known for bad referencing. WP:MACHINETRANSLATION states that unedited machine translations are worse than nothing (bold in original). dudhhr_Contribs 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ouch, yes, it's a very clumsy translation. The question is whether it would be easier for a (human) translator to start with the foundations of this nasty machine translation in place, or start from scratch. There is a case for keeping it, if someone thinks they can use the existing pictures, sections and references, and just sort out the unpleasant text. I'm assuming we like the subject itself? Cologne and its cathedral are amongst the more important specimens in Europe. Elemimele (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. See also: Talk:Surroundings_of_Cologne_Cathedral. Eric ^talk 22:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Thanks to the change of title and the copy editing which has already been undertaken, this is a useful article. Further improvements to the presentation should nevertheless be undertaken.--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Both the current and the original title are examples of the clumsy translation. If this were kept as a standalone article, which I do not think is warranted, the title would want to be "Cologne Cathedral quarter" or something similar. Eric ^talk 12:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've always admired your excellent command of English, Eric, but "quarter" covers a much larger area than that under discussion. As can be seen from this diagram, the "Umgebung" refers to the immediate surroundings. In related documents, the term "Umfeld" (environment or periphery) has been used. A suitable title might be "Cathedral periphery in Cologne".--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My command of English may be limited in that it lacks a definition for quarter that imposes a lower limit on the size of the area the term may be used to designate. If the neighboring area described in the Umgebung article is truly smaller than the smallest geography anywhere on Earth to which the term quarter applies, I'm sure we could come up with a less awkward formulation than "surroundings of", which comes across as a literal dictionary translation chosen by someone not fluent in English. But this is all academic as far as I'm concerned, as I do not think the topic warrants a standalone article. Eric ^talk 12:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, work on phrasing and references, perhaps shorten. I was invited on my talk to take a quick look, which I did, and rephrased the lead. I have no time right now for the long look this would need, because three bios are waiting today, but I will return. It's good information to have, and I don't think it can be merged easily. I'm not sure about the title, and I don't think we have anything similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability seems to be easily satisfied, and that's all we're here to determine at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot withdraw, as Eric has !voted to delete, but I have tagged the page for rewriting and some of the bad translatoin has been fixed. dudhhr_Contribs 17:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Grimes2 (talk) 06:33, 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 23:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Cable 11[edit]

Coast Cable 11 (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 a cable television community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) in a small town, not making or reliably sourcing any claim to passage of WP:NMEDIA. This just states that the channel exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and cites absolutely no references whatsoever to get it over WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:36, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddswars[edit]

Eddswars (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 and possibly made up series. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a blatant hoax. This appears to be partially copied from Eddsworld, oddly. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although this hoax article is based on a real article to give it a thin veneer of faux reliability, it remains a hoax.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also eligible for G5 deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if only for the persistent editing by the various sockpuppets of User:Peluches extronidos. However as a hoax it should be speedy deleted. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:13, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors of Texas by age[edit]

List of governors of Texas by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which is also statistical trivia. Unsourced WP:OR.

The first section of the list ranks former governors who are living by their age. There's no evidence that this ranking is notable, and it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired. It's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of office holders and longevity.

The second section of the list is a very confusing table of historical holders of the title "Governor of X", and is loaded with trivia, such as their age at start of office, age when they left, length of retirement, and final age, all in years and days. There are also separate ranks for by assumption of office and by final age.

The third section of the list is a confusing table of historical holders of the record for "oldest living governor of X," a title that appears to have been invented by a Wikipedia editor. The start and end dates list the time period during which the person was the record holder, their age at both, and the duration. This topic appears to be a completely original invention, and is certainly non-notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it would be appropriate to list the superlatives at List of governors of Texas and List of governors of California, but these just duplicate the names while adding statistical trivia about their ages. The media has commented on very old and young officeholders, but it's not encyclopedic in this way. Reywas92^Talk 23:45, 13 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)).

I am also nominating the following related page because both articles are nearly identical:

List of governors of California by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for the same reasons as all the other recently deleted lists of political office holders by age. pburka (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm about to block that creator, who is one of many socks. Very irritating. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: Is this the same person who built List of longest-living state leaders? There are many of these irrelevant lists now, and a list is needed to keep track of them. I would be happy to see the block. This is getting out of hand. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ode+Joy, no, that editor appears to be unrelated, sorry. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then somehow a few people seem to have some type of OCD about this subject. I wonder why. Thanks.Ode+Joy (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as Pburka suggested. And somehow put a stop to the reincarnation of these lists. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G5- so tagged. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this note may apply to List of governors of Texas by age, it certainly does not apply to List of governors of California by age because I am a user in good standing of over 16 years. OCNative (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I only tagged that one. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The news media repeatedly covers this information (at least for the California gubernatorial ages). There was repeated coverage of Jerry Brown being the oldest governor in 2011 after being one of the youngest governors in 1975, the generational shift from when Brown was succeeded by Gavin Newsom in 2019, etc. I don't see how this is WP:OR because it falls under WP:CALC and the dates are easily verifiable. Further, the nom's link to statistical trivia neglects to note that the link includes "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" so while these could use more sourcing, the articles clearly provide context with explanations. Also, numerous reasons for keep are listed at this AfD from last month on the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age. In the interest of full disclosure, I created List of governors of California by age eleven years ago in 2010. OCNative (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT overrides WP:N; and the only context this provides is also WP:OR (being entirely unsourced and not previously published on any website but Wikipedia; hence clearly meeting that whether it is CALC or not), so that doesn't help, especially if one takes into account that one can't readily find any source with which to actually write such a context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Someone with several thousand followers and who wants this article kept has just posted on twitter about this AfD, just a head's up if there's an influx of participants. Schazjmd (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Schazjmd: This one (doesn't look like that one has an account here, so linking it should be OK)? In which case I wouldn't be too concerned, although yeah of course keep an eye open so anything particularly obvious can be dealt with. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I put a “no canvassing” template up, just in case. Dronebogus (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as contentfork failing WP:LISTN. Listcruft as usual. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For all the reasons given by OCNative above. 60.242.192.54 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2021 — 60.242.192.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Wikipedia isn’t a collection of meaningless gerontology trivia no matter what some people think. Dronebogus (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mainly for the reasons laid out by OCNative. I also think this is a rather poor nomination, for example obviously List of presidents of the United States by age was not bundled here even though the topic is similar. I think it's reasonable that the Texas list could be non-notable while the California list is notable, I don't think there's a clear line for whether "list of $office by age" are notable or not so they should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. (note: was notified by OCNative to this discussion neutrally on my talkpage, I'm assuming this is because of my participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For full disclosure, I left the Template:Afd notices on the users who participated at two recent discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age (which resulted in keep) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity (which resulted in delete). Obviously, I didn't take the redundant approach of notifying users who had already participated on this page. OCNative (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with parent articles if they lack age data, otherwise Delete. This really doesn't need to be it's own article. BSMRD (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD List of governors of California has no age data, but is of Featured List quality without such info, while List of governors of Texas has life dates for each governor already. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- First of all my G5 argument was declined on the grounds that, although the sock has been blocked, the sockmaster for some reason hasn't been. This strikes me as bizarre and a bit pedantic, and as far as I'm concerned G5 still stands. But besides that, RandomCanadian is completely correct in saying the principles that apply here are "what wikipedia is not" and "no original research". This is a cross-categorization "List of X by unrelated property Y". It's not much different to having, say, List of fattest popes which everyone would agree is ridiculous. But I guess if the HAES crowd held as much sway here as the gerontology enthusiasts do maybe we'd be having exactly that conversation. Meh. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, looking at it now, the sockmaster and his entire sock drawer has been blocked, making the G5 decline even more perplexing. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk The G5 decline was valid, but based on a mistake. Bartolo 5565 was meant to be blocked when Drmies blocked the whole large sock network on Oct 6, but he forgot to block the Bartolo account. So @Explicit declined the G5 at 00:29 Oct 9 because Bartolo wasn't blocked, and Drmies rectified his oversite by blocking Bartolo at 2:12 Oct 9. Hope that helps. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a database query. Per nom, it is cross-categorization and trivia. If any of this were truly important, it could be merged to List of governors of Texas (and similarly for CA); the living former governors are already on that page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Without sources showing that the topic of ages of governors in comparison to one another is discussed to the extent such as that given in the prose of these articles (e.g., not just citations to things like "X is the oldest governor of state Y to take office"), this is a content fork, original research, and, to quote 力, "a database query." I don't see anything needing to be merged to the parent lists of governors. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:12, 18 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 redirect to VIXX. Can be restored if better sourcing is found. Sandstein 06:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MyDOL[edit]

MyDOL (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 should be deleted because it's a non-notable TV show. This article failed WP:NTV, which doesn't deserve to be included on Wikipedia. Based on what I searched, it's very hard to find the program, which is one of the main factors this article should be deleted. With that being said, I don't want this article on Wikipedia. A2013a (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning to keep - "I don't want this article on wikipedia" is not an appropriate deletion argument. It's a literal statement of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On my end, I can't read Korean, so I can't check for additional native language sources than we already see in the article. I hope we have some AfD participants who can more helpfully search. I don't think at face value it fails NTV (it's on a nationally broadcast TV network), and being difficult to google is not a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Matt91486.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this AfD has not seen much activity, nobody else has found sources, and my own WP:BEFORE searches have come up empty, so we are left with what's in the article now. Surely, phoenix-vixx-fire.tumblr.com and youtube.com are not reliable sources that show notability. The other site, "enewsworld", has no author information and no editorial information, so is likely either user-generated or a blog. This leaves us with allkpop.com, which is a user-generated site (their main page has a "create post" button above a Reddit-esque layout with downvotes and upvotes displayed beside posts). There seems to be no indication on the site of an editorial team, or even an editorial process. The people who posted the posts referenced by the article are webe, starsung and Germaine Jay, who does seem to be a staff writer, but that leaves us with only one allkpop reference, a passing mention in a four-sentence long post primarily about something that isn't MyDOL. Soompi does mention that it's a news site, but the source from Soompi doesn't mention "MyDOL" once. jp×g 00:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: in the event that consensus is not to keep the article, it seems at least to be a valid search term... would a redirect to VIXX make sense, given that the program was entirely about their formation? Richard3120 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to VIXX. My search for sources (even in Korean) did not yield significant coverage of this survival competition show. There were stories about actress Kim Yoo-jung being in a promotional video for the forthcoming program [10] and singer Sung Si-kyung (who was signed to Jellyfish Entertainment at the time, the agency behind the show, and therefore not independent of the subject) mentioning it [11]. There is the trivial tidbit of the show being available on Pandora TV [12]. There are sources that explain what the show is and how contestants would be selected [13], the elimination of four contenders [14], and the confirmation of the remaining six [15]. The individual episodes didn't get coverage, nor did there seem to be interest in general at the time. After the last episode was aired, there are drive-by mentions of "VIXX was formed through MyDol" or "X, who was on MyDol, is going to debut". Not enough content to sustain its own article. ✗plicit 07:20, 13 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamefam[edit]

Gamefam (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 my field, but the sources do not seem to actually show notability , and there do not seem to be any actually notable games yet produced. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep COI here because I made the article, and I knew this was coming up, especially since the article had been previously deleted. Their games, at least Hot Wheels Open World, have significant coverage, and there are more sources covering this specific game than just the one in the article. This is aside from the company itself, which has been covered by TechCrunch and VentureBeat. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it on he basis of recent opinions that TechCrunch was not a RS for establishing notability. . DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: WP:RSP does say that it may not be useful for verifying notability, which indicates in some cases it can be used, and it appears it's mostly just a caution for determining whether it's a blog or a news article, or a press release. If TechCrunch doesn't work, there still are two others on the article which means there's WP:SIGCOV, and the fact that the company is the first professional company to develop games within Roblox, an independent game, which is noteworthy. This is aside from Hot Wheels Open World yielding a ton of results when searching in news. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, Telecrunch is a promotional interview with the founder; so are VentureBean and GameWorld Observe, the sort of promotional interviews where the founder says whatever they chose, and therefore not reliable for NCORP. License Global is composed of excerpts from those two articles; the Autoblog article is just an announcement that they plan to do a review. If you know of better, please add them. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having made notable games does not automatically make a studio notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. I'm fine with the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since this is a company/organization, the applicable Guideline is WP:NCORP which lays out the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria requires references that provide in-depth information *on the company* (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and also containing "Independent Content" (see WP:ORGIND ie. not based on stuff announced/provided by the company). None of the references provide anything remotely approaching the criteria for establishing notability. Interviews fails ORGIND when the journalist fails to add any "Independent Content". Articles talking about one of their games only serves to (perhaps) point to the game's potential notability, not of the company. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Roblox games as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:08, 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 delete. There's consensus that she's not independently notable. There's no consensus whether to merge or redirect. I suggest that interested editors now seek consensus whether to cover her in which other article, and then create a redirect. If needed, this article can be draftified for merging via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Pack[edit]

Karen Pack (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:BLP1E: not notable as a pastor or academic. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (selective, the controversy section) to Morling College Sex Discrimination Act 1984. No coverage on Pack prior to 2021, and the coverage in 2021 is mainly from April 2021. However the coverage of the college's decision to sack a gay teacher for being gay is significant enough for a short section on the college's article and "Karen Pack" is a plausible search term for the controversy.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉, I think this is a fair assessment. However, I suspect the meniton of Karen would be subject to consistent editing out and perhaps edit wars on Morling's page, becuase it is a conservative, Christian college. DrMushEa (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrMushEa: the conservative and LGBT clash is the focal point of what caused this to be covered to begin with. The vast majority of colleges in Australia do not fire employees when they get married (to a partner of the same sex or otherwise). This is a particular aspect of this particular college.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced by User:Beccaynr that Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is a better target, as it is lacking actual cases. I do think it should be mentioned very briefly at Morling College (which could use expansion overall).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, selectively and per WP:NPOV, with Sex Discrimination Act 1984. An article about Pack otherwise currently appears to fit WP:BLP1E, because 1) reliable sources appear to cover Pack only in the context of a single event, 2) she appears to otherwise remain, and likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and 3) the event is not significant or her role was either not substantial or not well documented. The available reporting on the circumstances surrounding the loss of her job is limited, but the current law and its impact appears to be significant and well-documented. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Morling CollegeDelete. The Pack article by itself violates WP:BLP1E so keeping is not an option. Merging the controversy section in the Pack article to the Morling College article, other than perhaps a sentence or two about the subject, would breach WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK because the College article is not very long in its current form (and contrary to what Eostrix says above, the College is not only known for this issue - it has a much longer history than this particular incident). My inclination is to delete the article entirely (because it's not special in any way, it's a straightforward application of the religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act), but I accept it might be a reasonable search term and a sentence in the College article wouldn't violate any Wikipedia policies, so I'm prepared to allow that. Beccaynr's suggestion of a merge to the Sex Discrimination Act may have some merit, but it's just a common example of how the law may work in practice - there's nothing special about it. Following Beccanyr's adding of sourced content to the Sex Discrimination Act article, I am no longer convinced that a redirect is appropriate or that preserving this page is appropriate. Deletion is the best option. Deus et lex (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deus et lex: no where above did I say the college is only known for this. I suggested a selective merge for a short section at the college (at current size, a short paragraph worth I'd say).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Comment I agree about the WP:UNDUE concerns if there was a merge to Morling College, but I don't think a redirect works well, because Pack is no longer associated with the institution. One of the reasons I think a merge to the law works well is because that article currently has no content related to this application, and this article seems to WP:COATRACK that issue, e.g. Are greater protections needed for LGBTQ+ staff and students in faith-based schools? (The Educator Australia, April 9, 2021), LGBTQ+ teachers and students in faith-based educational institutions need urgent protection (Equality Australia, April 8, press release), and the legal issue is prominent in the reporting around the ABC 7:30 interview by Pack (ABC, April 8, 2021), (Star Observer, April 9, 2021), (QNews, April 14, 2021), (Pink News, April 14, 2021). There is also a podcast (Saturday Magazine, April 14, 2021) that may not discuss the law, but I haven't listened to it yet. I also think that while merging (which I am interested in attempting), research could be conducted to help develop a section about this particular application of the law. Beccaynr (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Oppose merge/redirect to both Morling College and the Sex Discrimination Act. The topic would be WP:Undue weight in either article in my opinion; particularly the latter as its just one case that hasn't necessarily achieved importance in relation to that act (i.e. are there scholarly papers actually demonstrating that, or are we allowing the media cycle to unduly place significance on this case in relation to that law). It doesn't look like this case had any important legal precedent, but was sadly a routine application of the law. WP:NOTSCANDAL/WP:NOTNEWS applies here. 4meter4 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think it is the legal issue that should be merged, e.g. Married Sunday, fired Monday: Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same-sex partners (SMH, 2017), In Some Australian Schools, Teachers Can Be Fired for Being Gay (NYT, 2018), Liberal marriage equality law architect calls to end discrimination against teachers (Guardian, 2018), Christian teacher says school forced her to quit for supporting marriage equality (Guardian, 2019) and the recent sources from this article do not appear to describe an application that is isolated or insignificant, and therefore can be placed in encyclopedic context in an appropriate merge target, per WP:NOTNEWS. There is some discussion of the issue that is segregated into LGBT rights in Australia and LGBT rights in South Australia, which had not been clear in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 article. Per WP:PRESERVE, I think the work done on the Pack article can be effectively merged to related articles with a focus on the legal issue. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how a single cherry picked case like this isn't WP:Undue weight in those articles, and I further note that having a redirect isn't possible to more than one article. Additionally, I think there are better and more appropriate ways (not to mention better sources) to address the wider topic of LGBTQ rights in Australia in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act. As you say, this is not an isolated case which means the content in those other articles should take a broader approach in our coverage rather than honing in on one of the many similar individual cases. I am sure there are many peer reviewed journal articles in LGBTQ studies, gender studies, legal studies etc. as well as other reference works with statistics and other relevant data that provide a broader perspective and analysis which would be a more appropriate way to tackle those issues within wikipedia's relevant articles. Given the issues of maintaining the privacy of living individuals known only for one event and the clear WP:COATRACK issues involved, I personally feel those issues trump any argument to WP:PRESERVE. 4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This is ultimately a WP:COATHANGER article attacking Morling College, no doubt by those who disapprove of the college (and presumably denomination) seeking to uphold traditional morality. Merging this article there would be worse, ATTACK. Apart from the apparently notorious sacking, I see nothing approaching notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Earlier today, I merged content into Sex Discrimination Act 1984, in a way that seems to fit the style and layout of the existing article, with a focus on the legal issue, not the specific case. In that article, I think the sources as presented work well enough, and I have not yet closely reviewed the LGBT rights in Australia and LGBT rights in South Australia articles to determine how or what to merge, and I have been considering linking these articles to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 article in the See Also section. Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, this was not actually a merge, as Beccaynr did not copy text or attribute a merge in her edits. She merely utilized the same references and applied them in a different context with different text (in a thoughtful, appropriate, and well executed fashion). Utilizing the same sources in a new way is not a merge, and therefore there is no reason to WP:PRESERVE article history with a redirect in this case. Deletion is therefore still possible. @Beccaynr, while a merge is a possible outcome of this AFD, please do not merge material without community consensus first during an open AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the reminder about the attribution, and I have added it to the Talk page of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 article. With the way this discussion progressed, it had seemed helpful to show my suggestion for the content. As to what to do now, it appears Pack voluntarily placed herself in the public spotlight and highlighted the legal issue, which created a flurry of reporting that can add to the encyclopedia, even if it is not enough to sustain a standalone article for her at this time. Upon further review of the LGBT rights in Australia article, and specifically the religious exemptions section, it looks like a redirect and merge can fit there, based on the existing content, which includes news reporting about another teacher. Beccaynr (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Beccanyr, no attribution was needed as you did not merge any material requiring attribution. You wrote original material and a merge did not occur. Merely utilizing the same sources but in a new way with new text does not require attribution to the Karen Pack article. Attribution would be required if you were actually copying text or using closely paraphrased text from this article. You didn't do that so no attribution is necessary. Further a redirect is inappropriate as Pack is not mentioned anywhere in the article's text. 4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I was trying to update my !vote to a redirect and merge to LGBT rights in Australia, where it appears Pack could be mentioned, because another teacher already is mentioned in the religious exemptions section. And as we're discussing elsewhere, I thought you were reminding me about adding an attribution, and I think that WP:COPYWITHIN supports it. I also think per WP:PATT, I can clarify the attribution without causing any harm to this AfD process. Beccaynr (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... It's a potential option, although I would limit the content to a single sentence if we were to redirect to LGBT rights in Australia#Religious exemptions. However, I question if adding this content is actually improving that article? Do we really need another example, and if so why this one? I'm sure there are many other LGBTQ teachers in Australia who have been fired for their sexual orientation or gender expression from religious schools that have made the news cycle since the law was passed in 1984. What makes this case exceptional? In what way are we actually improving that article? It seems to me that this is a rather un-necessary addition to that article; although feasible. To put it another way, the wikipedia article on murder doesn't actually list specific examples of murders because of undue weight being given to an individual murder in relation to the topic. I wonder if we would be creating undue weight issues by having examples in the Religious exemptions portion of that article by listing individual cases unless they were highlighted as important cases in scholarly writing outside of the news cycle. I don't think we have enough distance to make that case yet with Karen Pack as it is a very recent case. 4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think similar to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the style and layout of LGBT rights in Australia#Religious exemptions offers an opportunity for recent sources, e.g. ABC News, The Educator Australia, Equality Australia, to improve the section with updated information. A major news organization, educator magazine, advocacy organization, as well as a variety of other news outlets, took notice of Pack and her situation, while emphasizing the legal issue, but she is still highlighted as the reason the recent attention happened. Civil rights often advance based on individual test cases, and her situation appears to be that even if she could prove her claim, she would not win under the current law. That there doesn't appear to be much more is why this article appears to be WP:BLP1E, but Pack and the WP:SECONDARY context about the current state of the law have been found to be newsworthy, and the sources about her situation and the current state of the law therefore appear helpful for improving other parts of the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I get what you are saying, but this is why we have policies like WP:NOTNEWS. The sources in question all date from August 2021, I question whether a flurry of news coverage and activism just a couple months ago has given us enough distance to really evaluate whether this content is encyclopedic, and how it fits into a bigger topic. I would think we would need some sustained coverage in sources that extend beyond the current ongoing event over time to get proper perspective. I personally think it's too soon to be writing on Karen Pack.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think WP:NOTNEWS supports the merge of the April, 2021 sources, because it includes, events must be put into encyclopedic context, which is what a redirect and merge could accomplish, by placing the material in an article where it has relevant context. The WP:TOOSOON essay also seems to offer support for this, because it discusses adding encyclopedic content to related articles if there is an insufficient basis for a standalone article. Per WP:NOTEWORTHY, The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. Similarly, in WP:ATD-M, it states, Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccanyr, I am starting to get frustrated, because you seem to be ignoring the spirit of our core policies at WP:NOT (which is more foundational than AFD policy). TOOSOON is an AFD concept. I'm not arguing that because this is a merge discussion. If I am referring to policy I will link it. My argument is entirely based in WP:NOTNEWS and more broadly Wikipedia:Recentism. I am talking about the sources being too chronologically close to the events in question to get encyclopedic perspective. The topic is currently lacking secondary sources with chronological distance (largely because the events are too new to write about). We need different kinds of sources with chronological distance from the event. Otherwise we are editorializing news sources in a way that approaches WP:SYNTH and contradicts the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia should have a lag in coverage, because without it encyclopedic perspective is impossible. Examples used in LGBT rights in Australia should be taken from sources with a broader chronological scope of the topic, and with time in-between the example(s) and the publication of those sources. Those sources should be written by historians or scholars with the authority to speak on that topic with a scholarly perspective. In other words, examples should prove they are notable/ encyclopedic by being cited as a notable example years after the relevant event(s) took place. We need distance to get encyclopedic perspective, and that is the spirit of NOTNEWS. Ignoring that is WP:Wikilawyering.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - following changes done above I'm now in favour of deleting without any redirect (I've changed my !vote above). Thanks to Beccanyr for using some of the sources in a different article. I'm not convinced any redirect or merge is appropriate now. Deus et lex (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the WP:RECENTISM explanatory supplement helps emphasize how there can be good faith debate about the positives and negatives, as it relates to building the encyclopedia. The negatives section seems to relate more to the problem with recentism and standalone articles, while the positives section seems to offer some support for a merge and redirect, including but not limited to the part that states, by documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources will hopefully be found and used later. In my comment above, I was trying to be concise in an effort to avoid bludgeoning the process, while also identifying what I see as a broad theme throughout related policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Schaible[edit]

Stefan Schaible (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 businessman. References are paid profiles scope_creep^Talk 16:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. ––FormalDude talk 20:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not seem to meet NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 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 redirect to Religion in Cyprus#Hinduism. ✗plicit 14:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Cyprus[edit]

Hinduism in Cyprus (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 a notable topic, as the article virtually admits. TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Religion in Cyprus#Hinduism, which already says all that can be said about the topic. Reliable sources are seemingly silent about the tiny Hindu presence in Cyprus, so I agree that the topic isn't notable. Redirects are cheap, and the title is at least a plausible search term. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Religion in Cyprus#Hinduism per Extraordinary Writ. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article as it is. TabahiKaBhagwan (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, and admonish the creator for writing that Cyprus is a part of "the Arab world". Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 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 delete. Favonian (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hoffman (Florida politician)[edit]

Jake Hoffman (Florida politician) (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 notability criteria for politicians. TheLongTone (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above.Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 13:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete candidate running for the Florida House of Representatives. Fails WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above per WP:N. He has not even been elected to any major office yet, so he is a hopeful, not a real politician. No evidence of bribes or scandals, so not much news!. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and a bit of WP:TOOSOON. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 19:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-winning candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and that goes double when the election is over a year away so the candidate hasn't even won a primary yet let alone the general election. But there's no other claim here that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of a candidacy, and this is extremely overdependent on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, and purely run of the mill campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every district in every election always gets, which is not enough to render his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. MainPeanut (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the creator of the page. I realize he is not an officeholder at the moment, but the name "Jake Hoffman" was taken and is a common name, so I had to add (Florida_Politician) at the end, as the most appropriate. So rather than deleting, maybe the name can be changed, because he still has significant news and per WP:NPOL, it states: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." As such he meets WP:GNG criteria.

Here are some of the news that are significant and in-depth: [16], [17] and with combination of many mentions in several articles, he meets WP:GNG.

Possibly some of these delete voters are Democrats, and since the subject is Republican, they are ignoring the fact that he meets WP:GNG. Furthermore, the delete voters are mostly following what the others have said, without actually taking a close look at who Hoffman really is. Lagerstormeus (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lagerstormeus: Please do not cast aspersions on other editors, and please do not attack other users. If you continue such behavior, you may be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Comment on the facts of the article and on how policy applies to it. Do not comment on other editors. - Donald Albury 15:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and not independently notable from his campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Priyatungi (talk) 01:37, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution Relief[edit]

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

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

Notability is not met, including all the citations sourced to non-RS. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 12:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above.Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 13:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am providing a few of them in source assessment table.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:DMySon
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
South China Morning Post	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.	WP:SCMP	While not primarily about Persecution Relief. Though the website is subscription based but the article contains two paragraphs about the subject.	✔ Yes
OZY	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.	OZY (media company)	The article contains two paragraphs about the subject.	✔ Yes
National Herald	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there).	National Herald is generally reliable per consensus.	The entire article that is written independently by Ashlin Mathew depends on persecution data that is provided by the Persecution Relief.	✔ Yes
America (magazine)	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there).	America (magazine) is generally reliable.	Contains just about all the coverage and report provided by Persecution Relief.	✔ Yes
Christian Broadcasting Network	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there).	Christian Broadcasting Network is generally reliable.	An interview by staff reporter with detailed explanation by founder of the organization.	✔ Yes
Church Times	Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there).	Church Times is a reliable resource.	Religious persecution on the rise in India by HATTIE WILLIAMS. Independently covered.	✔ Yes
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)).

1. OZY (media company) — No discussion in WP:RSN yet, also reportedly a controversial one WP:RSEDITORIAL.
2. National Herald — Not a RS for its pro-INC bias, fails WP:NPOV, previous discussion.
3. America (magazine) — A pro-Catholic magazine, fails WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. See previous discussion.
4. Christian Broadcasting Network — pro-Christian, conservative bias, fails WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. See previous discussion.
5. Church Times — A Christian news organization, fails WP:NPOV and WP:DUE in coverage. See previous discussion If a news org. is RS in one category such as "Christian music" doesn't make it RS in reporting controversial info in another category. You'll need reliable NPOV (non pro-Church or pro-Christian related) paper quoting them.
6. Only WP:SCMP meets the criteria, however, it's only referenced for quoting a statistics, [...] Persecution Relief reported a 59.6 per cent rise in hate crimes against Christians from 2016 to 2019 [...], hence WP:UNDUE weight to a single source. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLinuz:The CBN source is the one listed in Christian music, NOT Church Times. I fundamentally disagree with your mis-application of WP:BIASED here. Wouldn't The Guardian or MSNBC be able to count as a reliable source for purposes of notability of a center-left politician? Why would it be different here? WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nominator. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TrangaBellam: Do you believe that the South China Morning Post is not an RS? The nom statement is that there are no citations that are RS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I strongly disagree with WikiLinuz's analysis as to why several of the in-depth sources do not count towards significant coverage owing to "bias". The editors states multiple times that the sources are biased and thus fail WP:NPOV, but this is fatally flawed in light of WP:BIASED, which states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Simply put, it is not the case that religiously affiliated papers are considered by the community to be inherently unreliable; The Jewish Chronicle is currently listed as WP:GREL at RSP, as is Deseret News. In particular:
  • The link given by WikiLinuz for the alleged unreliability of Church Times does not actually describe that news organization. Rather, Falls Church Times is the source discussed in the RSN archive given, which is described in the conversation as a "community newspaper". I don't think there's any reasonable way to conclude that Church Times fits that bill except by completely misreading that RSN discussion. Rather, Church Times appears to be a >150-year-old WP:NEWSORG focused on the Anglican Church.
  • The RSN discussion that focuses on America (magazine) is not about the source's general reliability, but rather the specific reliability of a podcast published by the magazine's parent company. And, while it's certainly run by the Jesuits, that doesn't actually mean that it serves as a propaganda outlet for the teachings that proceed from the Catholic Church's magisterial authority. It's definitely got a Jesuit bias, but it also seems to be typically reliable for factual reporting, just like any other WP:NEWSORG.
  • The 2011 RSN discussion of Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) doesn't seem to reflect community use of the source. A more recent RSN discussion generally seems to have found that the source's reliability is context-dependent. The source is listed as reliable WP:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, for example, though editors would not use it for facts on evolution. There are some issues with the depth of this source (it appears to be about persecution of religious minorities in India more than the organization itself), but it's moot in light of the above two plus the SCMP source.
  • And, there are more sources that appear to give in-depth coverage, including Vatican News. I'm also seeing its persecution reports being referenced all over the place, from Asia Times to Business Standard to The Tablet and many, many more.

Overall, based upon sources in this thread, the organization appears to clearly meet WP:NGO. The group's activities are on a national scope, and Persecution Relief has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are editorially independent of their non-profit organization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to analyzing sources, doesn't qualify any notability guidelines. Seddiq Sabri 22:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NGO as demonstrated above by Mikehawk10 and DMySon above. I can find many WP:RS including US government sources reporting about the organization's role in covering Violence against Christians in India.^[1][2][3][4]. Another WP:TOI source.^[5]

• Keep There are enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources, passes WP:GNG.Mahdiar86 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mikehawk. The suggestion that coverage in CBN has to be ignored because it is "pro-Christian" is absurd and harmful to the encyclopedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:NGO dictates the that multiple reliable sources independent of the NGO should abide WP:COISOURCE to establish notability. Hence, we eliminate the publications which are proven to be having undeniable pro-Christian or pro-Church POV. WP:BIASEDSOURCES isn't used to establish notability, rather it's for usage in articles. Coming back to CBN's video source, at 22:23 you can see clearly the source stand to benefit from a shared POV, which violates the specific independence policy. All the sources which stick to NPOV and independent policies doesn't provide significant coverage about the NGO, and solely quoting statistics isn't "significant coverage" either see WP:SIGCOV#1.2 and WP:SPIP. WikiLinuz (talk) 00:59, 18 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 14:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Brand Score[edit]

Semantic Brand Score (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks like academic spam to me: all sources that discuss the topic have a common author, then padded with a large number of sources that are relied upon synthetically to support claims in the article but do not actually discuss the subject of the article; I can find no evidence that the topic has received significant coverage in sources independent of the inventor of the idea. Article creator appears to be an single-purpose account whose contributions all focus on promoting the work of the same author. JBL (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that notice of this has moved beyond the proposer, Colladon. I agree that most of the citations are not about the topic of the article. I warned the article submitter about this some time ago but I see rather than fixing the problems they elected to just move the draft back to article space. They've had plenty of time to fix it, so I assume no fix is possible. - MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (quite reluctantly) because it is an interesting twist on brand equity. But so far a "one man band". My guess: it will gather attention in time, and others will re-invent it, claim authorship anew, write books, as usual. But for now, no go. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT Delete Deleting this page is, in my opinion, the expression of a biased view. Honestly, I don't care about the effort wasted in the creation of the pages I edited and you deleted. I see it as removing knowledge from Wikipedia, but ok. What I feel is wrong is extending the same reasoning to all pages, including this one. Deleting this specific page would mean ignoring several secondary sources that not only mention, but also describe the metric. Among these there are newspaper articles, TV interviews, podcasts, scientific papers, blog posts and master's thesis. A good amount of these is not related to the authors of the primary sources. I gave some examples of primary and secondary sources in the Talk page. Let me also add that this page has been online for almost 3 years, has been referenced by other websites and edited in its content by other Wikipedia users that probably found it useful. Somethingtoshare (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Somethingtoshare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I looked at your list. First I clicked on several links to find they'd been authored by Colladon, so they weren't independent. I did find an independent one I checked as a sample, 'Semantic knowledge network inference across a range of stakeholders and communities of practice'. It doesn't describe the Semantic Brand Score at all. It mentions the title of the paper in the references list, but the paper is only referenced as part of a list of recent papers. Please cut your list down to only those papers that are independent of Colladon and include subtantial content (more than a sentence or two). If we find enough sources I'll consider flipping my !vote, but I don't want to have to wade through a pile of trivial mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I did find one spammy cryptocurrency paper using this by a second group of authors, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8, but that's not enough to convince me that this subject has become a significant topic of research by multiple groups yet. WP:TOOSOON. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distinctiveness centrality which appears to involve more academic spam from the same people. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Secondary Sources. Thanks @MrOllie: (also for your patience and good advices in the past), I am slowly learning here. And thank you @David Eppstein: for finding a source I was not aware of. I will list some secondary sources here, so the others can also easily look at examples:

1. This paper uses the metric and describes it in detail. The metric is not only mentioned but calculated and used by the paper authors: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631930582X
2. These newspaper articles (one of the major newspapers in Italy) report a use case of the metric: https://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2019/05/14/marketing-della-poltica-della-lega-brand-vale-piu/ and https://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2019/05/21/elezioni-europee-le-parole-che-i-giornali-associano-ai-partiti/
3. This Linkedin blog post presents an analysis of German elections, carried out by some author using the metric: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/next-bundeskanzler-armin-laschet-ulf-jeffke/?trackingId=Qr0AC8SGRNWwvksbncScag%3D%3D
4. This page presents a real use case of the metric for business (carried out in Russia): https://rb.ru/interview/aventica/
5. These news articles (university press) describe the research about the metric (don't know if they count as secondary sources): https://www.bacheca.unipg.it/vita-accademica/2654-successo-per-il-semantic-brand-score-del-professor-andrea-fronzetti-colladon-misura-la-forza-di-un-marchio-si-puo-applicare-anche-alla-politica and http://old.ing.unipg.it/en/main-page/78-news/600-semantic-brand-score-sviluppato-da-andrea-fronzetti-colladon
6. The cryptocurrency book chapter that uses and describes the metric, found by David Eppstein. I don't know if crappy or not, but still published in international conference proceedings by Springer: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-66981-2_8
7. The Brand Mentions Encyclopeia: https://brandmentions.com/wiki/Brand_Score
8. In addition, a lot of scientific papers refer to the metric, even if not fully describing it. Many of these do not include the author of the primary source. See for example: https://scholar.google.it/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22semantic+brand+score%22&btnG= and https://scholar.google.it/scholar?cites=11163848385607207233&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

All these analyses and sources are independent from the paper author. I am also aware of at least two master's theses that use the metric (and were not supervised by the primary source). I just cannot find them online.Somethingtoshare (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somethingtoshare: You need to accept that you are in quicksand now. The more you struggle, the chance of survival for the article diminishes. Everyone here (except yourself) can see your desperation, and interpret that as a conflict of interest. And you have done nothing else, so your single goal is obvious. Accept the inevitable. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly unreliable sources or more trivial mentions. The Schlaile paper is of the standard we're looking for, but we would need more than one such source to keep this article. MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Once we discard the unreliably-published sources, the promotional material, and the "references" that merely give background, we're left with a spammy cryptocurrency paper and the Schlaile et al. paper on "meme maps". That's pretty darn thin. Representing datasets by graphs and cooking up measures for them has been incredibly big for the past ~20 years; it's very easy to do, but much harder to say whether the outputs are meaningful. Without a much more substantial secondary literature that critically evaluates this measure, we can't write about it in an encyclopedic way. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My delete vote stands, but I should comment on your "much harder to say whether the outputs are meaningful" statement. This approach will, of course, produce at best a "half baked estimate" of "real brand equity" whatever that may be. But the other approaches typically produce "third baked estimates" if they are lucky. To give you context I recall that when Rupert Murdoch was buying US Media companies he used some Australian rules to interpret inflated brand equity as goodwill and borrowed huge sums from the banks down under. And of course you know who has consistently used sky high estimates of brand equity to borrow from a couple of specific banks. So brand equity is a nebulous idea that amounts to billions and billions. So this article will be deleted, but let us not kick the concept it presents. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:57, 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 delete. Favonian (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Draffin[edit]

Peter Draffin (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. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable. Despite the massive refbomb I'm seeing no notability here.

What has he done? He wrote a book that was illustrated by someone notable, Martin Sharp. Worldcat tells me it's in 13 libraries. Austlit lists one edition but lists no review of the book. He was interviewed about that illustrator but that's about Sharp. Commentary from Draffin is not independent of Draffin. Search of NewsBank and Trove came up with nothing better.

Lots of namedropping going on but notability is not inherited from other people. "Draffin was photographed with other notable Australians by Jon Lewis". Some of those photographed are notable ("The portraits are in black and white and are a mixture of notable Australians and unknown members of the general public, of varying ages and backgrounds.") but that does not make him notable.

Note also the dishonesty in its construction. See the claim that "His Sydney Morning Herald tribute attracted Australian arts figures, including some from Draffin's halcyon days, to his Chippendale memorial service on 2 December 2019" The claimed source for that [18] says. "DRAFFIN, Peter Francey

Died peacefully Friday 22nd November 2019

Friends and relatives are invited to attend a memorial service on Monday 2nd of December commencing at 11.30am at Knox St Cafe, 21 Shepherd St, Chippendale, 2008.

PICALUNA FUNERALS ....." As clearly seen this source makes no mention of who was attracted to the memorial service, and could not as it was published before the event. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The above intro is malicious nonsense. Should anyone here wish to witness @duffbeerforme’s record of personal abuse and defamation towards me, they may view my User Talk Page:User_talk:QLitBabel#COI Culprit is currently under investigation at a higher level subject to a formal complaint from myself. QLitBabel (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please be Civil during AFD discussions. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 17:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability.--Grahame (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - author is notable in his native country demonstrated by e.g "His books remain in Australia's State and National Libraries, while his portrait remains with the National Museum of Australia" and most notable work a "beat book collector's item" etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by QLitBabel (talk • contribs)

• Delete. I didn't find any reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, nor any other indication of WP:BASIC, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Books in a few libraries do not make for notability. The "memorial service" source is a paid funeral notice, not an editorial obituary. Almost all the refeences are mere notices . DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR, author has a clear undisclosed WP:COI, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, massive refbomb with only passing mentions. Fails notability criteria. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:57, 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 delete. Favonian (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. S. Burrough[edit]

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

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

Promotional autobiography of non notable author. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. There is a lot of sources here but none that are independent reliable sources that give him any real depth of coverage. There is a lot of primary sources that verify the existence of works. (note that the author of this page claims that Burrough's own writing is not primary). The best is a capsule review in the Sydney morning Herald but that's not enough. Claim of "bestselling" is for local listing for a niche market only. Not a national open one. Worldcat shows a highest holdings of 8 libraries. Search of NewsBank and Trove came up with nothing better. Last afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C S Burrough closed as no consensus largely due to low participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Not remotely "promotional" - subject is a national icon QLitBabel (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It reads like something from the publisher's marketing department, I have trimmed back some of the unsourced name dropping. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although the article claims the subject is in A Guide to Gay and Lesbian Writing in Australia, a search in that book for Burrough comes up empty. The best bet to notability still looks to be WP:NAUTHOR. I'm seeing two books, with the latter (Or Forever Be Damned) having two reviews; I wasn't able to verify reviews for Keeping the Family Name. The article has enough problems (promo, primary sourcing) that WP:TNT may be relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The 1996 edition of A Guide to Gay and Lesbian Writing in Australia does not come up empty QLitBabel (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I read just fine, and clicking on the link for the book that is in the article, then copying and pasting "Burrough" into the search box reports "no results". Searching in the book for other authors seems to work. If the link is broken, please provide an alternative here. Meanwhile, I recommend that you read WP:CIVIL. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  QLitBabel took to heart WP:CIVIL, and removed comments. The thought behind that is a very good one. I've edited to strike instead of removing (in two places), per WP:REDACT, as editors have already responded. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe the reason a google book search comes up empty is that pages 31+ are omitted from the book preview? Page 30 ends at Be. Short of Bu. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Duffbeerforme: Google Books usually allows you to search also in the parts that it won't show you in preview (but will show only snippet results). Or are you saying that their scan is cut off before the end of the book? Given how marginal any notability seems to be (and in light of WP:TNT situation), I'm uncertain whether it makes so much difference. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Indeed Russ Woodroofe, as per your note to be "more civil" (while treated with 0 civility) I edited my comment - yours, conversely, show you're in no glasshouse to throw bricks. "Trolling" not "editing" applies here, making you next up for report QLitBabel (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An extensive google search found only primary sources, Q&As, or unrelated news stories. Nothing that I found contributes to WP:GNG and therefore fails. However, I am free to change my opinion if I somehow missed anything. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Allow independent creation of the article which would address the issues raised by nom. But delete for now. Orientls (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Illogical afd idea when this article’s earlier afd tag (22 August) was only just removed 3 weeks ago on 13 September due to no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C S Burrough) QLitBabel (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER, can find no significant in-depth coverage of him anywhere. Theroadislong (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As rogue elements duffbeerforme and User:Theroadislong are currently pending results of complaints re this topic, neither are eligible to comment. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by QLitBabel (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rogue elements!!!! Please link to the complaint, I can't see one?Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Theroadislong I'm not your mother, find link yourself (it's out there) QLitBabel (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @QLitBabel: For the benefit of other users participating in this discussion, could you point us in the right direction, please? I checked the "What links here?" for both users but nothing jumped out at me. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please ((ping)) me in replies) 11:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I note that the article describes Burrough as one of the earliest HIV+ authors in Australia to come out publicly about HIV status. That might make him notable in itself — the cultural history of the Early AIDS Crisis is a particularly under-served area on enwiki — so it would be useful if we (all) could spend a little time looking for relevant sources on that basis too. Having not yet done so, I'm not yet comfortable voting to keep.
  
  That said, seeing the article relisted on AfD shortly after a deletion discussion that was relisted twice and mentioned on 3 different deletion lists yet still only managed to get 4 users to care enough and 2 votes, suggests there is no consensus to delete. Relisting it because the consensus didn't fall the way the proposer wanted feels like sour grapes and not the best use of editors' time, frankly. If there was no consensus to delete after trying to attract editors to the discussion last time, trying again until you get the desired roll of the dice doesn't feel like the kind of good faith we are meant to assume. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please ((ping)) me in replies) 11:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched but can find no mention of Burrough being one of the first to come out publicly about his HIV status, except for his Wikipedia article anybody else found anything? Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OwenBlacker On the procedural note, I agree it's a little soon after the last AfD -- WP:RENOM suggests waiting 2 months after a no consensus outcome, with the suggestion a bit less urgent when the AfD failed mainly due to lack of participation (as it did here). It's only been about 1 month. However, the article and possible COI of its originator have been under discussion at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#C._S._Burrough. The increased attention does make it more likely to get significant participation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not mee WP:NAUTHOR, work is not significant or well known, Or Forever Be Damned has two reviews (SMH, and HNS, so technically meets WP:NBOOK but this is not enough for a wikiartlicle on the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This article has a few claims to notability in it, but none of them seem to hold up to sourcing and WP:V. I didn't find anything about the subjects role in the early HIV pandemic. There are two books with two reviews each listed (for a possible bare-minimum pass of WP:NAUTHOR, but I didn't succeed in verifying those for the first book (and I have real concerns about veracity in the article, given the claim in the article to coverage in A Guide to Gay and Lesbian Writing in Australia, which does not seem to hold up). Overall, this looks a bit WP:TOOSOON to me, and the article is anyway in poor enough shape for WP:TNTing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a very highly promotional biography, and could be deleted on that basis regardless of notability. It's advertising for the books, and advocacy for the individual's causes. See especially the Early life section) If he is considered notable, it's indeed a case forTNT, as suggested just above. As for the earlier AfD, a no-consensus close can be appropriately followed by another afd without much delay--it is good practice to wait at least a few weeks instead of doing it immediate in order to avoid another no-consensus close. I don't see that as a problem, especially because we do seem to be approaching consensus now. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 13 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. Favonian (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctiveness centrality[edit]

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

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

Concept developed and cited exclusively in a bunch of very low influencial works by the same author who, by chance, is the author of everything the article creator writes about on wiki. Vituzzu (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All the hallmarks of academic spam; new coinage, no evidence I can find that it's been studied by anyone other than the author. --JBL (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. At Vituzzu: I do not understand your position against my articles. The pages we are creating have secondary sources and usually refer to social network metrics and software that are knonwn and used by many scholars. The works you judge as "low influencial" have many citations and have been published in well-respected sources (both primary and secondary, such as Elsevier's journals or major newspapers). I think before changing, deleting or trying to delete all our articles, we could have had a reasonable discussion about it. We are just trying to contribute to wikipedia and the free diffusion of knowledge. Somethingtoshare (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Somethingtoshare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Specifically, you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia the free diffusion of knowledge of the work of one particular person or group. This behavior is also known as "spam". The article under consideration in this discussion has no secondary sources, and concerns a topic that is essentially brand new, so could not possibly have had time to become influential. Most of the rest of your comment does not have anything to do with the article that is the subject of this discussion. If you want to make Wikipedia better, write about something other than yourself and your work. (Also I can't help myself: A publication in an Elsevier journal! Wow! That's ... extremely common and not an indication of significance or value of any kind.) --JBL (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear case of academic spam, no evidence that this has gotten any attention beyond the works of Colladon. - MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only publication related to this outside of its original authors that I found was a spammy cryptocurrency paper doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8, which uses this in passing as part of a broader use of Semantic Brand Score (also up for deletion after being spammed here by the same people). I don't think that's the kind of in-depth coverage by multiple independent sources required for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination and the "delete" !votes above. At best, it's too soon. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 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 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 10:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamunotri Gupta[edit]

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

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

Lacks detailed coverage. Businesswomen, unsuccessful politician and wife of an elected politician. Venkat TL (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely agrees with Venkat TL. After a short research, I could'nt find much about her. This article definitely lacks a detailed coverage. Divineplus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 9 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 10:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Agrahari[edit]

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

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

Lack of detailed coverage in reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is some news on him but that's around him being out of Sapa. Not sufficient for WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:08, 9 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. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaathu Vaakula Rendu Kaadhal[edit]

Kaathu Vaakula Rendu Kaadhal (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 film doesn't meet with WP:NFF guideline. Because this is an unreleased film. It has no release date.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 09:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 09:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 09:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: There is no sense in this nomination. It's a notable film. If a film doesn't have release date it doesn't mean it's not notable. WP:NFF don't says that. It just says production house need to be notable and the principal photography should start and it should be covered by various sources. 7 Screen Studio is a notable production house. The production house produced and distributed successful films that are '96 (film) (produced and distributed), Master (2021 film) (distributed) and there are some upcoming films of the production house that are Cobra (upcoming film) (produced) and Mahaan (2021 film) (produced). It also produced Asuravadham and principal photography of the film started and the commencement of the principal photography is covered by various sources / references. Hence / therefore the film is notable. Hyderabadi (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I highly recommend you quit the personal attacks as it most likely get you blocked. The discussion here is about the article not the editor. – The Grid (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Grid: Sorry I removed that. Hyderabadi (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hyderabadi: Hi. Don't do any personal attack. I'm partial blocked for copyrighting. I'm blocked from mainspace not from draftspace. And I'm nominating pages about 2 weeks. I'm not very expert at it. But about 4 page deleted. However, WP:NFF says that if a production is notable then its film also notable. But there is no guideline if the production made many many notable films the production is notable. Please give any unique proof. Thanks.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 07:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tajwar.thesuperman: yeah I also mentioned why the film is also notable because the film article contains various reliable sources. Also the starting date of production is also covered by many sources hence it's a notable film.

  Rules of WP:NFF:

  Rule number 1: Production house should be notable Y

  Rule number 2: The principal photography of the film should start Y

  Rule number 3: The starting date of the production should have coverage from reliable sources Y Hyderabadi (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify as I couldn't see any concrete evidence of the start of the principal photography, just that a video was surfaced. Unless it's reliably sourced, I think draftifying is a good place instead of deleting, since most content covers WP:BLP as well, for the time being giving the article time and space to evolve. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I added 2 new sources which directly says the date of start of principal photography of the film that are: 1 2. So yeah don't draftify. Hyderabadi (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DraftifyPer Above. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 09:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per DaxServer. – The Grid (talk) 12:24, 15 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 speedily deleted per A7, G11. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Rakibul islam nayem[edit]

Rakibul islam nayem (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 claims he is "the highest paid Bengali actor", however that appears to be false. Does not meet WP:GNG or any SNG as fact as I can tell, and appears to be an autobiography. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. At the moment it's mostly a paste of his copyrighted promo from followingbook.com. Speedy deleted once already at Rakibul islam nayem; not yet at Rakibul Islam Nayem, but give it time. The poor quality references so far mention him doing music for a single film of unknown notability, but nothing about him being a politician. 2A01:4C8:A8:CC79:A02C:337A:ADA8:5145 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A7: A non notable biography written by the subject. An extensive google search found no significant coverage. The subject has received a main role in no notable films and could be eligible for A7 as besides the false claim that he is the "highest paid Bengali actor", there is no other claim of importance. Fails GNG, NACTOR, and NPOL. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 14:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedying. Deb (talk) 18:07, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Annie-Laurie von Auersperg[edit]

Princess Annie-Laurie von Auersperg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

sociality. None of the content of the article is about her actual work, but rather about her family. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- here are sources I found: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article starts by saying she is a fashion designer. But references 5,6 and 7 are quite obscure local publications. I am pretty sure she has never done Milan Fashion Week etc. The article is about her family. Fails via WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless sources are found giving significant coverage outside of tabloid trivia and her pedigree, a bio on this person is just unencyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm experienced editor on Royalty articles. But this one is clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. We also should delete his brother Prince Alexander-Georg von Auersperg. The article is just a restatement of genealogical trivia, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. VocalIndia (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NOTINHERITED. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:13, 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 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 10:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vidup Agrahari[edit]

Vidup Agrahari (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 detailed coverage and poor sourcing. Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable singer/politician/person. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:09, 9 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 10:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmi Narayan Singh[edit]

Laxmi Narayan Singh (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 detailed coverage, could not win elections. Venkat TL (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:05, 9 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. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Erste Bank Open[edit]

2021 Erste Bank Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, no references except for the official website. Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has received significant coverage in e.g. Die Presse [29], Kleine Zeitung [30], Tiroler Tageszeitung [31]. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Iffy★Chat -- 10:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. References shared above, I don't see any point in deleting or draftifying this now only for it to be re-created in 15 days. Doing so only makes this article harder to find for our readers and discourages improvement. NemesisAT (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I second your opinion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Drafity per User:4meter4. Wikipedia is not a sports news service. The article can be brought back when the results are known and there is significant coverage. JIP | Talk 23:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This tennis page should remain. Given the tournament is in 8 days, we will be getting some coverage by then, sufficing enough sources to justify the coverage requirement, WP:GNG. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:34, 18 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. Article has been edited during the AFD, and the consensus appears to be that the current sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aly (journalist)[edit]

Heba Aly (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, the notability test for journalists is not passed just by verifying that her work exists, and requires third party coverage and analysis about her and her work in sources independent of herself to verify that her work has been externally validated as significant. But the references here are entirely to primary sources (staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers and/or directly affiliated organizations, Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a video clip of her giving a speech) that are not support for notability at all, with absolutely no evidence shown whatsoever of any notability-building coverage about her in real media.
Additionally, this was started in draftspace and then moved into mainspace without proper WP:AFC approval, by an editor who appears to be on a personal campaign of bypassing AFC review by just automatically mainspacing any draft they can find about a woman journalist, regardless of whether the sourcing is actually up to snuff or not. That's not how draftspace works, however -- it is not a free "take what you want" table of stuff for non-AFC reviewers to just pick and move articles themselves, and rather drafts must be properly assessed through the AFC review process (which is to say that I have to see the exact phrase "Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9.1)" in the edit summary of the move, because the move was properly done through the AFC reviewer module. If that isn't there, you're doing it wrong.) Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not very familiar with AFC, and I agree that this user may not be following conventions, but there doesn't seem to be any rule prohibiting established editors from moving pages to article space from draft space without using some special AFC reviewer module. pburka (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - two sources I have found so far reporting on her career: Sudan expels a Canadian contributor to the Monitor (CS Monitor, 2009), Freed from UN, a 20-year-old news network embraces independence (CJR, 2016). Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for adding sources. IRIN, now The New Humanitarian, is a long-standing and large, global news organization. I moved this draft into main space because there were several citations (thank you for adding more!) and because of her prominent leading role. I do work on a project to help add women journalists to Wikipedia, but I only move articles to main space when I think they are notable and have good citations. I didn't know anything about AFC so thanks for sharing it. I'm reading up. Can anyone point me to the module you're referring to? Thanks a lot.--Angshah (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angshah, you can review WikiProject Articles for creation for more information about the AFC review process, which includes the reviewing instructions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may also need to familiarize yourself a bit more with what constitutes "good sourcing" for an article about a journalist, if you think the sourcing here was good enough. A journalist's notability cannot be sourced to staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, pieces of her own writing, interviews in which she's talking about herself or something else, or content on the websites of directly affiliated organizations. Notability hinges on her being the subject of third party media coverage, written in the third person and published by media outlets (magazines, newspapers, television or radio stations, etc.) that are not simultaneously employing her as a content creator. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have drawn up a source assessment table to help assess whether support exists for WP:BASIC notability, i.e. significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (footnotes omitted), and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, based on sources that are not profiles or otherwise written by Aly. Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC) table entry updated Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One should also be reminded that Articles for Creation (AFC) is an entirely optional exercise and bypassing it without "proper" AFC "approval" should not be portrayed as some type of breach of policy. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Sudan expels a Canadian contributor to the Monitor (CS Monitor, 2009)	"Aly, a freelance reporter who writes for several news organizations including the Monitor"		~ mostly based on her statements, some WP:SECONDARY context	✘ No
Canadian journalist recounts days leading to expulsion from Sudan (Pulitzer Center, 2009) links to INTERVIEW: Canadian journalist recounts days leading to expulsion from Sudan (Sudan Tribune, 2009)			~ mostly an interview, with some WP:SECONDARY context	~ Partial
Attacks on the Press 2009: Sudan (CPJ, 2010)			~ 4 sentences, including a summary of what she said in media interviews and to Reuters	~ Partial
Freed from UN, a 20-year-old news network embraces independence (CJR, 2016)			~ mostly about IRIN, emphasis on quotes from Aly with minimal background about her	~ Partial
The New Humanitarian (no longer an acronymed UN agency) wants to move humanitarian crisis journalism beyond its wonky, depressing roots (Nieman Lab, 2019)			~ features her opinion as an expert, reporting is mostly about TNH and includes her comments about TNH	~ Partial
Interview of Heba Aly, The New Humanitarian, on Peace & Humanitarian (Geneva Solutions, 2020)		Geneva Solutions: the journalistic platform on international Geneva	~ interviewed as a "thought leader", which is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary	~ Partial
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)).

Interviews in which the subject is speaking in the first person don't help to build GNG, and advocacy organizations aren't GNG-eligible media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Geneva Solutions commentary on Aly as a 'thought leader', in a report that otherwise appears to reprint her standard profile and her statements, is from my view, not as significant a support as other sources that interview her for her expertise, and I should have made this more clear - from my view, when a subject is interviewed as an expert, this is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that supports notability, and additional reporting and context beyond what she says also adds support for WP:BASIC. As to the CPJ, I think you raise a good concern about their neutrality, although I had been thinking of the journalistic aspect of the organization as a boost to its reliability. The CPJ is also a research organization. Beccaynr (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After also adding sources to The New Humanitarian article, which I think would benefit from expansion and revision based on those sources, I think there is sufficient support for notability per WP:JOURNALIST#3, because in her work as Director of TNH, she has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and specifically the collective body of work at TNH during her tenure, and per the guideline, it has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles, and as noted above in the source assessment table, there is additional support for her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly notable given the independent sources from CJR and Journalism.co.uk, as head of a prominent UN-connected organization. I've also rewritten a lot to be more consistent with Wikipedia style, which seems to have been a factor in the nomination. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Beccaynr and Fuzheado. Passes WP:JOURNALIST.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per Bearcat. Non-notable journalist who has never been written about in any detail by an independent source. BexBlack314 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep By sources of article, notability has been established per WP:JOURNALIST.Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources indicate that the WP:JOURNALIST threshold is achieved. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 24 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 delete. ✗plicit 07:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amman Academy[edit]

Amman Academy (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 subject. A google search of "Amman Academy" -wikipedia returns results that appear to only establish its existence and not its notability. Using the custom search engine only returns 2 results, both of which are parent apps on the Google Play Store. I had put this up for PROD not realizing that it had already undergone PROD before. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 19:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 19:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please search for the Arabic name, which according to Google Translate is أكاديمية عمان Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eastmain: I already have and they appeared to return similar results. I also don't really understand Arabic so I could be wrong. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]