< April 19	April 21 >

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 06:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misamis University[edit]

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

A non-notable institution with virtually nothing I could find that can verify the notability of the institution. Looking through the history of the article since its creation, it managed to slip through the cracks of what's needed in an article, sources. Sources about the subject are an important element. But not a single one has ever been added to this article. The only link is to the school's website which does not count as an independent source or a source in general unless a page from there can provide a reference. But it doesn't. My PROD of the article was removed because "a higher-education institute founded in 1929 is likely to have independent sources." Not in this case. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be an accredited degree-awarding institution. WP:CONSENSUS has generally been that we keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna have to provide evidence of your claim. Appearing to be is not much of an argument. Notability is the main concern here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added cites as a CHED recognized Center of Development. That means that MU is up there with the Universities in the national capital region in certain academic disciplines. The University's accreditation, as suggested by Necrothesp, is confirmed by its Deregulated Status. That also means that the University is free from CHED's monitoring when it comes to curriculum building.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSCHOOL per Lenticel's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, clearly meets criteria. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mustard Grain[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, with the only sources provided being an IMDb page and a passing mention in a compendium. My WP:BEFORE check did not bring up anything of note, though similarly titled things may be muddying results. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 22:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Spain. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 22:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admissible after the recent improvements.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with the addition of a reception section based on significant coverage in reliable sources such as El Pais so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shopperoo Inc.[edit]

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

Not notable nearly-new marketplace with no significant footprint. Sources are a mix of charts and press releases, and in some cases don't match the text in the article. Fails WP:NCORP. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Questionable sourcing, relatively new company. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also seems like a WP:PROMO. --MuZemike 01:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, barely any sources, new company. If they do something noteworthy, we can create this article again. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. - Hatchens (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A promotional article. Alex-h (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory or yellow pages or a platform for promotion. No indications of notability, no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP and agree also seems like a WP:PROMO. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO. Fabiobengario (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suphi Saatçi[edit]

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

No claim of any notability and no refs here demonstrate notability. Possible/ probable copy from Turkish Wikipedia which does have more sources but translations of those also fail to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Turkey. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Mora[edit]

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

not notable, only real claim is that she was married (now divorced) from an MLB player and there were domestic violence issues. She's certainly not notable as an aesthetician or otherwise and her status as a victim also does not make her notable. CUPIDICAE💕 19:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is more sourcing related to her and the allegations made in the divorce, e.g. Sun-Sentinel 2004, in addition to the 1997 UPI report. I also found brief coverage of her related to abuse allegations against Cordero (Hartford Courant, 1997). The 2015 Philly Inquirer article about her and her salon provides some biographical information, and there is some coverage of her charitable work following Hurricane Maria with biographical information (ABC6, 2018), and coverage of her charitable work in 2021 (ABC7). There is no mention of her experience as a survivor of domestic violence in the most recent sources, so I favor deletion per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, e.g. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. If we follow this policy, there appears to be insufficient sourcing to support the article per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Beccaynr's reasoning. All of what I find about her is routine rather than in depth. Rockphed (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:MUSIC. (non-admin closure) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sender (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. PepperBeast (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National charting satisfies WP:MUSIC#2. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs updating as it appears the band disbanded in 2014, according to this substantial article in the Bendigo Advertiser, which calls them "one of Bendigo's most famous bands" which would seem to meet WP:MUSIC #7 "Has become one of ... the most prominent of the local scene of a city". Their music was on rotation nationally as part of the Triple J Unearthed program (WP:MUSIC #11). --Canley (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attaining a national chart entry should generally exclude acts from being considered for deletion; this reference is a good starting point for some career details & highlights. The aforementioned Bendigo Advertiser article is fairly substantive too. Additionally, Bohdan Dower, is a producer and mixer in his own right, who's also gone on to be moderately successful himself. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: along with national charting compliance, according to another WP:RS they are "very well known", and also feature in the book 'Music Town^[1]'. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Woolridge, Simon. Music Town. ISBN 9780648024613.

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. Relatively minimal involvement from other editors in this discussion but sources provided seem to clearly indicate GNG, which is supported by both contributors. Don't see a realistic chance of any other outcome were this to be relisted as a result of the sources presented. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PSIW Wonosobo[edit]

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

PSIW Wonosobo

Non-notable association football team. The team plays at the third tier of Indonesian football. An article on the team was created, and was then draftified by User: Praxidicae as not ready for mainspace. The originator promptly both submitted the draft for AFC review and created a copy in article space, possible in order to game the system, making a second draftification impossible. There are three references, two of them being interviews; none of them are independent secondary significant coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	suarabaru.id	Interviews with players and others	No, interview	Yes	Probably	Yes
2	kuasakata.com	Interview with coach and players	No, interview	No	Probably	No
3	skor.id	Article about the upcoming tournament	Yes	Not about the team	Probably	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Teams at this level of play are usually notable, even though their players are usually not. For comparison, look at the blue links at Southern Football League (UK) or National Premier Soccer League (US). Here are five sources that are in-depth and are about the PSIW Wonosobo team (not individual matches): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I will admit to knowing nothing of Indonesian media, but there is coverage. Furthermore there is quite a bit of coverage of individual games by the team.--Mvqr (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Mvqr. Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: are you sure you meant delete? Because the rationale is more towards keeping.--Mvqr (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right - clarified, apologies! Giant Snowman 08:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Undeserving[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Couldn't find any significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. PepperBeast (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found a blog post by the lead singer who says that they never put out an album, never went on a tour, had a few TV spots but that was it. I think that speaks for itself. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As seen in the very illustrative blog posts found by Tony Fox above, this band has a sad story of being screwed over by the music biz, and that makes for compelling reading. But the fact that they missed the big time means that they never got the independent and reliable coverage that is necessary for an encyclopedic article here. They got their material onto sites like Bandcamp and continue to retroactively promote themselves in the usual social media outlets, but that's not enough for our purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wale Kwik-Ajet[edit]

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

Article about semi-professional footballer that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or the deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that it was inappropriate to delete articles that met the former NFOOTBALL standard - however, that isn't the case here. I've searched for online coverage of this footballer (who played during the internet era), and can find nothing but trivial coverage (like the article about his signing by Chester City). Jogurney (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as article creator (forgive me, the rules have changed since then!), no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find any significant coverage on him when searching on Google, Newspapers.com and Tímarit.is (he played briefly in Iceland). Tried various versions of his name during the search, including Wale Kwick Ajet, but only found trivial mentions. Alvaldi (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - As noted above does not meet notability requirements with no sign of significant coverage. Dunarc (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is minimal at this moment. desmay (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG and WP:Football. Alex-h (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to lack the WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. This does not preclude someone from creating a DAB under this title Star Mississippi 01:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine genocide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any scholarly sources or reliable news sources that frame the Holodomor and the abusive actions against civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a concrete and coherent joint topic. I find plenty of sources that frame the actions against Ukrainian civilians in Bucha within the context of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, while I also find plenty of sources about the Holodomor genocide question itself. But I can't find any reliable sources that frame both together within the same narrative of genocide in their own voice.

As such, this article looks like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH that combines the Holodomor with the Bucha massacre in order to create a topic that sources don't exactly describe together. The page should either be redirected to Holodomor, which is the long-standing target of the Ukrainian genocide redirect, or deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a friendly note, the previous deletion nomination occurred when the page was a dab page, which this page clearly is not at this point. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH per nom.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Ethnic groups, History, Law, Military, Politics, and Terrorism. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If kept Rename to Genocide in Ukraine. The present title might mean genocide by Ukraine. Ideally reduce to a dabpage for Holodomor and Russian war crimes in Ukraine in 2022. Though several leaders have used the term genocide, it is not clear that the currently unfolding events constitute a genocide, as opposed to the commission of serious war crimes against civilians. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Holodomor - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holodomor genocide question and Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are enough. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If it were to be redirected, Holodomor or War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would seem plausible. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and SYNTH, as mentioned above. Either that, or create a disambiguation page or list article redirecting users to the Holodomor, Bucha massacre or Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine articles. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a stub that points to both articles would be sufficiently neutral, 'ie Ukraine genocide may refer to...' type fork. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 14:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you prefer that we delete the page's content and replace it with a disambiguation page? — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The article is a poorly written case of obious OR and SYNTH; statements by politicians are not equal to scholarly consensus. If we were to treat the private opinions of politicians as equal to peer-reviewed research done by scholars, then we would likely end up with an article called "Russia genocide" sourced primarily to statements by Vladimir Putin. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this article is clear synthesis, and any contents with merit are duplicated by the two appropriate articles. Ovinus (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A blatantly synthetic topic with no value as a redirect, considering Ukrainian Genocide already redirects to Holodomor BSMRD (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that whatever happens to this article (delete, redirect, disambiguation page), the same should go for the Ukrainian genocide and Ukrainian Genocide redirects too. It would be weird to totally delete the Ukraine genocide article (for example) but keep the aforementioned redirects. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The original proposal is (as stated literally) inconsistent. Either all three should become a redirect, or all three become a disambiguation page, or all three be deleted. Boud (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and redirect to Holodomor as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of massacres in Ukraine. An extra column !Claims of Genocide can be added there to list WP:RS references with "genocide"[1][2] and "not a genocide"[3][4] for those massacres in Ukraine that some scholars (or other notable sources) qualify (or dispute) as genocide, possibly with very brief prose in the new column. So far we don't seem to have any cases where scholars have broad consensus on genocidal intent, but I suspect that there are more cases than Holodomor and the current Russian invasion for which some notable scholars assert genocidal intent. Boud (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the article lacks reliable news sources and abusive actions against civilians. DMySon (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point in existing of this article that describes the Holodomor and the current genocide when there are separate articles for both of these events, which, by the way, are much more informative than this article. Danilmay (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can kind of understand if it was just related to the current atrocities (although the war crimes article covers it pretty well) but why must the Holodomor be mentioned? Plus the article itself doesn’t go into any details about the atrocities of either. Plus it’s probably too soon to start an article on this at the moment. It was a while before we had the Uyghur genocide article as despite it starting in 2014, there wasn’t an article on it until late 2019. Hell even Guatemala and Darfur were mostly covered by their war articles until much later. Regardless of whether the actions of the Russians are a genocide or not, there simply isn’t enough information to warrant the article in the first place. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here , for example, is an article published today linking Moscow’s 1930 use of genocidal language against Ukrainians to its use in 2022: Anne Applebaum, “Ukraine and the Words that Lead to Mass Murder.” —Michael Z. 17:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A single labeled opinion piece in The Atlantic plainly does not make this article pass the general notability guideline, which requires multiple independent RS that cover the article subject (I.e. the union of the Holodomor and 2022 war crimes) significantly. We have zero. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. ✗plicit 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walls (EP)[edit]

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

Notability issues. Album seems to have only one valid review. Mooonswimmer 14:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. There has been some recent hubbub surrounding the articles for this band and its albums; see this and this. Some of the band's albums qualify for their own articles but this one does not. The article mentions one review by the Sydney Morning Herald: [6]. It's a reasonably robust review but it's the only one I can find. Otherwise the album got some user-generated notice (including Sputnik) and minor announcements of its release, but those are not reliable and significant enough to be of use here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No valid reason for deletion provided, likely bad hand/sock. Any editor in good standing is welcome to bring about a new AfD if they believe it's merited. Star Mississippi 01:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frood Fouladvand[edit]

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

This article is in hopeless condition, barely any citations, wrong and/or unsubstantiated information in violation of BLP. It is nearly impossible to provide better citation or verification as this person has disappeared over a decade ago. It's had a long time to improve, time to delete it. Mattjames1 (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Frood Fouladvand[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Iran, and Turkey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has 22 citations, which covers most of the article. If there is wrong and/or unsubstantiated information in violation of BLP, I think we should start removing that first. Also, your very first action here in Wikipedia was to nominate this article for deletion, not something a new user would even know how to do, curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Half of those aren't real reasons for deletion, see WP:NOTCLEANUP. "Hopeless condition", "it's had a long time to improve" are one of the most common faulty arguments. I would encourage you to read WP:ATD and provide more details on the talk page about the specific issues you have with the article. I can't immediately see what violations of WP:BLP you are talking about. ObsidianPotato (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources do not support the notability of subject as they are ALL passing mentions or descriptions of the situation rather than the subject itself. The fifth source, [[7]], vaguely covers subject in a few sentences but that is the most in-depth coverage of the 22 that were provided. Notable publications such as Washington Post don’t provide a pass simply with a line. A Google search did not turn up unused supporting evidence for notability either. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this article has lots of sources and has garnered much attention and that is good reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John Jantsch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Commitment Engine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK amd WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tough to really nail down notability for a lot of books in this category, there's a LOT of marketing going on and it's hard to sort them out. Having said that, I note that this author has several other books, all of which are included in his article, and I don't think there's enough to make this specific book need its own specific page. Merge anything not already there and Redirect to John Jantsch. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After the two early keep votes which apparently did not consider WP:NCORP, this discussion essentially came down to HighKing vs. Cunard's assessment of whether the available sources met that guideline. Other participants were evenly split on which they agreed with and I can find no basis for finding a consensus either way. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Makers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of real notability. Written in a promotional manner. Also look at the COI issues w/r/t this article's creation, raised in the previous deletion discussion in 2007. QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple WP:RS articles about the company listed right in the references used: two from the Daily Herald and one from the Deseret News. It's definitely written in a promotional manner, but that can be easily fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned it up a bit now, removing a couple useless refs and organizing the refs so they didn't duplicate each other. The wording has been cleaned up, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are two specific sources (Daily Herald and Deseret news). Both sources are rather fluff - nothing hard-hitting about the company but praise for their scrapbooking products. Other sources are routine business info like being purchased. Those don't establish notability but do provide facts on the history of the company. Lamona (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Weak Keep enough to Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Leaving aside the obvious primary sources, directory entries and Press Release announcements - this Herald Extra article is an ad masquerading as news. It relies entirely on an interview with the owners and it has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
Next from the Herald Extra is a simple repeat of a company announcement and a press release some days earlier, fails ORGIND. Similarly, a lengthy profile is contained in this magazine but the only problem is that there's no "Independent Content" - all of the information on the company is provided by people affiliated with (a "consultant" who assists in creating the book) the company or from the company website, fails ORGIND.
Finally, this from Desert News is an article about one of the "consultants" who work for the topic company, has no "Independent Content", also fails ORGIND.

I've searched for other article and I cannot find any that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gorrell, Mike (2009-12-23). "Heritage Makers earns attention". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18.
  The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is enough independent reporting and analysis to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. The article notes (my bolding): "The five-year-old Provo company, which uses a direct-selling approach in marketing its self-publishing products, has received several bits of national recognition in recent months. Its storybooks were described on CBS's "The Early Show" as one of the best personalized gifts around. Over on ABC, a "Good Morning America" segment cited Heritage Makers as a good direct-selling company to join. Oprah Winfrey had good things to say about the storybooks on her TV show and in her magazine. And Inc. magazine put Heritage Makers 132nd on its list of the 500 fastest-growing private companies, citing revenues that grew from $587,636 in 2004 to $8.5 million this year."
2. Clark, Cody. (2005-07-17). "Self-made memoirs" (pages 1 and 2). Daily Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is enough independent reporting and analysis to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. The article notes (my bolding): "It's not surprise that the product is popular in Utah Valley, where family industry and anything connected to it is as much an industry as it is a hobby. ... As evidenced by the breadth of its consultant network, however, Heritage Makers has appeal to people who don't have a built-in motivation to keep personal records. The company and its products were the subject of a six-minute segment on The Early Show on CBS, and have been featured in magazines like Redbook and InStyle. And while creating a storybook that celebrates an individual or preserves a cherished memory is perhaps the most obvious application of the Heritage Makers technology, the product is versatile enough to inspire interest that goes beyond personal record keeping."
3. Leong, Grace (2005-04-24). "Springville's Heritage Makers captures family histories in storybooks". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18.
  The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is enough independent reporting and analysis to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. The article notes: "The idea for Heritage Makers began in a storybooking kit created in 2002 by Sharon Murdoch, a former English professor at Brigham Young University. ... Heritage Makers was the result of a merger in January 2004 between Murdoch’s My Family Tales and Cloward’s company, Heritage Home Studios, which creates DVDs of photographs and videos. With help from a few tech-savvy BYU students and funding from Randall Harward, founder of neighboring Harward Irrigation Systems, a sprinkler and irrigation systems supplier in Springville, Heritage created Heritage Publisher, software that allows customers to scan, load, crop and size photos and create text for a 28-page storybook."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heritage Makers to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just noted the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New(ish)_edit_non-admin_closing_AfDs_-_queries_being_ignored_on_Talk_page. While I stand by my close, happy to give @HighKing: the chance to respond. As such, changing my close into a keep !vote and won't close it. While HighKing raises valid CORP-adjacent points, it appears that the sources Cunard identified address most of those depth issues. Star Mississippi 02:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to sources posted by Cunard. It is very notable that Cunard does not address the specific requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. "Independent reporting" is *not* the same thing as "Independent Content" and is not one of NCORP's criteria. Cunard says the articles also provide "analysis" but fails to provide any examples which would meet ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Similarly, Cunard's reasoning of "Significant coverage in reliable sources" is not sufficient to pass NCORP - for example you can have "significant coverage" based on an interview but which contains no "Independent Content", thus failing ORGIND.
- The first reference is from the Salt Lake Tribune. Cunard says "there is enough independent reporting and analysis" to meet NCORP criteria. I disagree. It is a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by spokeswoman Jennifer Ringger who provides a ton of information about the company. The quote provided by Cunard is the lede, right before we get introduced to Jennnifer Ringger and this is not "analysis", merely mentioning the fact that the company received exposure in the media. It is notable too that this same exposure is also mentioned in the next reference from The Daily Herald and also appears on multiple blogs created by the company's "consultants" to drum up sales and promotion. You can even see on their archived website that they provided PDFs of the "coverage" (although no longer downloadable). Rather than this being "analysis", I say it is a standard part of the info pack provided by the company when being interviewed. Regardless, there is insufficient details in the quoted article to see whether those media slots, in turn, may be used to establish notability. From the looks of things, some of the media exposure was a result of Oprah's inclusion of their products in her list of gifts under $100. I found this blog post and interview which mentions both the Oprah and the CBS coverage. The Oprah mention is specifically in relation to a book written by one of the company's "consultants" for Oprah about her pet that died - Oprah called the consultant to thank her and later listed the company's books as one of her All-Time favorite Gifts under $100 in her Nov. 2008 O Magazine. That does not meet our criteria for notability. The "feature" in Oprah's November 2008 issue of the O Magazine simple says the following: ""This is an online publishing center that allows you to upload your photos and write captions for each; you can preserve your memories and record your legacy in one beautiful book." ($4 per page; heritagemakers.com)" The aforementioned blog also suggests that the "Early Show" picked up on Oprah's mention and showed one of the books on the show - no indications that the show profiled the company, only the book. Again, this is not even close to our criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, we've all seen the Inc.com list of growing companies and inclusion on the Inc.com list (with a profile provided by the company) is not sufficient to meet our criteria. This article fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
- The next reference is from "Life & Style" of the Daily Herald. Cunard says "there is enough independent reporting and analysis" to meet NCORP criteria. I disagree. The article starts by mentioned a "Wendy McGee" who is one of the company's "consultants" and also a "client" and goes on to also quote from the company's president, Sharon Murdoch and her daughter, Candace May and the company's publicist, Jennifer Vance. Clearly, this article was written to publicise the company and the article relies entirely on information provided by people associated and affiliated with the company. There is no "Independent Content". It is notable that, just as in the previous reference, mentions are made of the "media coverage" on Oprah and ABC, etc. The quote provided by Cunard is made up of different cuts from various areas of the article - but, especially in light of the reliance on information clearly provided by people associated with the company for the vast majority of the article, the parts highlighted by Cunard are not clearly attributable to the journalist and are definitely "analysis" sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. I am sure that most people who read the text of the article will reach the same conclusion. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
- The next reference is from the Daily Herald. It is clearly a "puff profile" and once again we see that the article relies entirely on information provided by Doug Cloward, a co-owner of the company. It has no "Independent Content". Cunard's extract is not an example of "analysis" by the journalist. The "origin story" (part of every puff profile) appears in various forms in lots of articles including the two previous references provided by Cunard and the blog post I referenced above. It is not directly attributed to a source but the context of the text within the overall article strongly suggests it was information provided to the journalist by Cloward and/or the company. Regardless, it is also not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company and fails our "Independent Content" test from ORGIND.

None of those references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. They are standard company profiles that rely entirely on interviews with company execs (or "consultants") and are designed to promote the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for adequate ventilation of the points raised by and in response to Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources says:
There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:
- Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
- Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
The sources I provided have "functional independence" as the journalists from The Salt Lake Tribune and the Daily Herald are unaffiliated with the company. The sources I provided have "intellectual independence" as they include "original and independent" investigation and fact checking that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". The Salt Lake Tribune wrote, "The five-year-old Provo company, which uses a direct-selling approach in marketing its self-publishing products, has received several bits of national recognition in recent months." The article then provided examples: CBS's "The Early Show", ABC's "Good Morning America", Oprah Winfrey's TV show and magazine, and Inc. magazine. This is an independent synthesis of and reporting about the national attention that the company has received. Heritage Makers' press page does not include these examples of national coverage.
The coverage in Daily Herald also provides independent analysis. The article notes, "As evidenced by the breadth of its consultant network, however, Heritage Makers has appeal to people who don't have a built-in motivation to keep personal records." This is analysis about what the journalist thinks about the company. The article continues, "The company and its products were the subject of a six-minute segment on The Early Show on CBS, and have been featured in magazines like Redbook and InStyle." Heritage Makers' press page does not include these examples of national coverage. Six minutes of coverage on CBS's The Early Show strongly contributes to notability. The article continues, "And while creating a storybook that celebrates an individual or preserves a cherished memory is perhaps the most obvious application of the Heritage Makers technology, the product is versatile enough to inspire interest that goes beyond personal record keeping." This is more analysis about the company.
Although the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the company, there is enough independent analysis, reporting, and fact checking to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources.
Cunard (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response It seems to me that you are making some unsafe and unproven assumptions about content being *clearly attributable* to the journalist and you are also ignoring the SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH test on the "Independent Content" you claim to have identified.

Firstly, it is not clear that any investigation or fact checking took place by the journalist. Sure, you've extracted a small amount of content relative to the size of the article, but that content is not *clearly attributable* to any source. The content itself is very high-level and which appears to me to have likely been provided by the company or their execs. The context of the text also cannot be brushed aside - over 95%+ of the article content has *clearly* been provided by the company and/or the execs, the text you've highlighted, which is unattributed to any source, should not be assumed to be "Independent Content" especially also in circumstances where there is no indications of any kind in the articles that the journalist claims to have done any homework or is expressing any opinion.

Also and as a small point, it is incorrect to say that the website Press page doesn't provide examples of national coverage - I provided a archived snapshot of the website previous which listed the newspaper articles and if you take a look at a later archived press page the national coverage such as the Oprah show was, in fact, listed and points to the ABC News website with the clip. This is not "independent synthesis of and reporting", it is repeating information provided by the company for promotional purposes. Also, comments about the product (the storybook) is not about the *company*, the topic we're examining for notability, as per CORPDEPTH's section "Significant coverage of the Company itself".

But for me, the biggest and more obvious flaw in your reasoning is that you haven't then applied the SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH test on the content you claim to be "Independent Content". Any "Independent Content" in an article (see WP:SIRS) must also meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCCOV. The "Independent Content" you've provided, when looked through a CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV lens, are examples of trivial coverage. So even if we were to agree the articles contain a small amount of "Independent Content", it still wouldn't be enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of the sources is that in each source there is enough intellectually independent content that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject" (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources) to meet the significant coverage requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. Although you write, "The content itself is very high-level and which appears to me to have likely been provided by the company or their execs", this is not my assessment of the sources. The sources contain quotes from people affiliated with the company, but the sources also have plenty of independent analysis, reporting, and fact checking of content about the company. Cunard (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity for the closer and anybody else, what you're in fact saying is that this part of the Salt Lake Tribune article for example, "The five-year-old Provo company, which uses a direct-selling approach in marketing its self-publishing products, has received several bits of national recognition in recent months." meets SIGCCOV and CORPDEPTH and therefore that reference meets NCORP? That is not CORPDEPTH, sorry. We can do the same for the other extracts. None meets CORPDEPTH once you remove content that fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is not the only part of The Salt Lake Tribune article that is independent and contribute to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's analysis of the sources. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's argument NemesisAT (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I was all set to close this as Keep, basically based on a head count, until I looked at the references. All three independent references are from Utah (in other words, local) papers: Deseret News and Daily Herald. To me a company that cannot get any national press - ~~or even a mention in the most important Utah paper, the Salt Lake Tribune~~ - is not notable enough for inclusion. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. I see from Cunard's analysis above that the company actually did get a story in the Salt Lake Tribune, although nobody has seen fit to add it to the article. My opinion stands. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN (talk · contribs), I added The Salt Lake Tribune source to the article. The sentence I added says:
A 2009 The Salt Lake Tribune article said that ABC's Good Morning America viewed Heritage Makers as "a good direct-selling company to join" and CBS's The Early Show saw it as "one of the best personalized gifts around".
This shows that Heritage Makers has received national coverage on national television. The Daily Herald article published on 17 July 2005 says, "The company and its products were the subject of a six-minute segment on The Early Show on CBS". Would you review this? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cunard. That article, with its documentation of national attention to the company by multiple sources, changes my opinion to Keep. It would be even better if some of the national mentions cited by the SLT could be added to the references. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, the entire argument for Keep appears to be the fact that various media coverage mentions the topic company's product appeared on Oprah and then that, in turn, led to mentions on other TV shows. Have I got that right? And that, according to some, meets our standard for in-depth and significant coverage (containing "Independent Content") *on the company*??? Seriously? Cunard has been pushing this for a while now and when asked to point to the parts of those various articles that meet both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND, his first effort waws analysed and found to fail and there hasn't been any meaningful further attempts. You've !voted Keep based on Cunard's analysis - perhaps you've spotted something that meets NCORP? Can you point to it here? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Nom and HighKing. There has been a lot of discussion about a subject that, on the first fast look, is shown by sources to be promotional. It is a promotional type company that would absolutely know how to spin promotion public relations through the media. The intent of Wikipedia is "supposed to be" world knowledge. It is not intended to be a business stepping stone. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many would consider information on businesses to be part of "world knowledge". Let's not pretend Wikipedia only covers what a traditional encyclopedia would. NemesisAT (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per HighKing's analysis of the sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. weak? Mild? Can we find another synonym? Star Mississippi 01:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Willey[edit]

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She seems to have won a number of notable awards. Doesn't that satisfy WP:ANYBIO? pburka (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only possibly notable award is two Independent Music Awards in 2009 for "Childrens Music: Album" and "Childrens Music: Song". From our article on this award, "...self-distributed recordings and releases from independent record labels. The IMAs honor works in over 100 categories...". So, there are plenty of awards every year, and judging by the refs and pageviews for our article, the IMAs are marginally notable at best. Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep Looks like she's been featured in the New York Times, but the paywall won't let me in. If it's the same person, she did music for a national travel campaign for Newfoundland, Canada [8]. Her "Breathe like a Bear" has one Kirkus review [9] and one in the Digital Journal [10]. One of her songs is mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal, [11] about yoga for children. Her books are also recommended curriculum material here, in a thesis: [12]. I think with all this and the awards she's just notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis and weak keep. CT55555 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another agreement of the analysis. Weak Keep. It feels wrong to write this little substance in a !vote casualdejekyll 17:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwire[edit]

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

Obvious fail of WP:NCORP. 12 pageviews in 30 days and a broken website suggests that this company never really went anywhere. Edwardx (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be only a brand name that appeared for maybe two years and then ran out of money. Never got close to being notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. W Nowicki (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A SNOW keep. Consensus is clear that the notability requirements are met. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Hall (information scientist)[edit]

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

The academic is not notable. Article seems to be written as a CV, and looks like it is likely written by someone very closely related to Hazel or the subject themselves. ClevelandUpdates (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she is indeed notable under WP:NPROF as a FRSE. -- asilvering (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.--Mvqr (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Scotland. TJMSmith (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mvqr and asilvering. St Anselm (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable; her FRSE satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #3, and her extra-academic contributions possibly also #7. (As an aside, I can't help wondering about the motivations behind this nom?) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to explain why David Eppstein's rationale for removing the WP:PROD was in error [13]; both WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3 are satisfied. Being "written as a CV" is grounds for editing and cleanup, not deletion, as long as there's an underlying case for notability (and this article is far from the worst that I've seen in that regard). XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a gentle reminder to the nominator that PROD is only for non-controversial deletions. Any editor familiar with our notability guidelines ought to have realized nominating a page like this would be controversial. pburka (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I already explained on my unprod: FRSE is a pass of WP:PROF#C3, and she also passes #C1. WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to Me Too on this misguided Afd nomination, as exposed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: FRSE etc. I'm not sure what the nominator expects to see in an article on an academic, if they think this is too like a CV. It has reliable independent sourcing for every statement. The creating editor worked briefly on a handful of, mainly Scottish, subjects, and the article has been edited by a wide range of editors over the years, giving no particular indication of COI. Can we call this WP:SNOW to save everyone's time now? (I see this is the nominator's 48th edit: perhaps there should be an experience criterion before AfD nominations can be made?) PamD 08:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As outlined above I don't think there are valid grounds for deletion. Subject clearly seems to meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above,she satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Alex-h (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MobileDay[edit]

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

solely an ad for this company, which could probably qualify for WP:TNT in the first place.

as for notability, i found no sources looking around the web after a while. the three sources currently in the article consist only of one primary source, one source is permanently dead, and the last source, while admittedly being a reliable source, doesn't have any substantial content on it. 晚安 (トークページ) 10:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Software. 晚安 (トークページ) 10:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily as a A7 or G11. Not close to being notable.--Mvqr (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure promotion. Not every instance of "two kids and an app" is notable just for getting some seed funding. W Nowicki (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone Street Pizza[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. The sources are either local or trivial, e.g. "GSP has been voted the best pizza in Portland by fans of PBS" turns out to be a list where anyone can add an entry[14]: "Submit your suggestions using the form at the bottom of the page and we’ll add it to the list." and thus has no value at all. The article in the Oregonian is a passing mention[15]. Local articles like this add very little, and this epitomizes why local articles don't count towards notability for companies. Which leaves us with one article from OregonLive, [16]. It hasn't made it into any books according to Google Books, it has very little impact in general, 49 GHits is absolute peanuts for a current North American subject, and GNews are the usual local things[17], many already included in the article. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Companies, and Oregon. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right, Fram, I completely misunderstood the purpose of the PBS page. My bad! I've removed and added a few more Oregonian articles as references. I wish you had shared concerns on the article's talk page before jumping to AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep per GNG and expand with additional detail. I can go into the Oregonian archives for a deeper dive; also, seems the business has had a few different names. We just went through this exercise at Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom, which Fram nominated for deletion but was kept, expanded, and nominated for Good article status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article absolutely needs work, but it has some good sources and I support keeping it. As a Wikipedia inclusionist, I think we should work to make this article better, rather than simply flagging it for deletion. PickleG13 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A concern I have about keeping this is that virtually all restaurants and bars etc in areas served by local press are going to get routine mentions, often about their opening or a special menu etc. I would point to WP:AUD which states "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". We need to consider depth and significance of coverage as well. I'd be interested in hearing other editors views on this. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very often in these discussions, I have to point out to editors that The Oregonian is not "of limited interest and circulation". The newspaper is the largest in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, and one of the few U.S. newspapers with a statewide focus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the contents are not aimed at Oregon but only at Portland though[18], and other bits show the typical "we are about the whole state, but actually most interested in what's here in Portland" vibe many such sources have, like this article on "our favourite neighbourhood pizza's" in Portland. Fram (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to agree that The Oregonian is of limited interest/circulation. I've written dozens of Good articles about Portland restaurants, using similar sources (The Oregonian, Willamette Week, Eater Portland). I've also added a bit more to the article, which I think should be kept not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a GA has nothing to do with being a notable subject (even FAs have been deleted on that ground in the past). And I have said nothing about the circulation of the Oregonian, only that some of their content is explicitly labeled "Portland" and some is implicitly Portland-oriented (they wouldn't write about "our favourite neighborhood pizzzeias in Oregon". It is no coincidence that all sources for these Portland eateries are all Portland-based. Fram (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just agree to disagree. Time to let others decide the article's fate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Looking at Category:Pizzerias in Oregon, we have a staggering 28 entries from Portland already, plus 2 further articles about, oh, more pizzeria's from Portland. I know that Portland has a good eating culture, but the only other city and state with a category is New York, with 20 entries, and only 26 further pizzeria's for the whole US (excluding chains). That's 30 for Portland, and 46 for the remainder of the US... Fram (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, looking at Category:Pizzerias by country we have zero pizzeria articles for France, Germany, the UK, Canada and even Italy. So 30 pizzerias in Portland, a city of less than 700,000 people but zero in the birthplace of pizza. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your gripe is with a larger content gap, not my work related to Portland. People should be making entries for notable restaurants regardless of location. Also, some of the "Pizzeria" categories are new subcategories of "Italian restaurants" and just need to be populated. Again, has nothing to do with this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources of of local interest only for another generic neighborhood business and I echo AusLondonder's comment. The fact that the Oregonian also covers statewide and regional news has no relevance to its Portland dining section, which is intended for a local audience. There are now 439 articles in Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon and its subcategories (of which 118 are defunct, many like Portland Penny Diner and Tasty n Daughters failed within a few years as many in this industry do - unclear why Wikipedia should memorialize them), at rate of 1 in 1500 residents. Compare that to the city with the next most restaurant articles, Category:Restaurants in New York City with 312 (of which 79 are defunct), a rate of 1 in 28,000 residents, then Category:Restaurants in London with 168. The difference is not that Portland's restaurants are particularly significant or notable, it's that one person has decided that routine local coverage intended for locals to see the latest dining information is the basis for Wikipedia articles. Other cities do not need this level of articles either: have them for the most widely acclaimed or historic restaurants, not any and all that get entirely-expected local reviews and list entries. "The 'For the House' pizza has Italian sausage, mozzarella, arugula, and pecorino Romano cheese" Big whoop, it's not our place to highlight parts of http://gladstonepizza.com/menu. "The menu has also included local microbrews and a Caesar salad" WOW! Thank you for letting me know I can drink beer with pizza! Just because Willamette Week's blurb mentions that doesn't mean we need to; their "Cheap Eats 2011" had entries for 158 restaurants, but that doesn't contribute to notability for all of them. This is fluffed up with passing mentions like [19], which also attributes the area's "momentum" to a record shop, herb shop, and gallery, not just this and another restaurant. Then there's junk like "Erin DeJesus included GSP in Eater Portland's 2012 list of "The (Sweet) 16 Essential Pizzerias of Portland"" - the list doesn't even have a word about any of its entries! A few other lists like this that don't think Gladstone is "essential" include [20][21][22][23][24][25]. Websites like Eater, Thrillist, and Time Out and local alt-weeklies and even the main local paper around the world may churn out blurb after blurb, listicle after listicle, ranking after ranking, reader poll after reader poll about the local food scene, but without more substantive coverage with a broader audience, Wikipedia is not the place to compile what's included in these, even when paired with reviews that are routinely done for restaurants. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "... one person has decided that routine local coverage intended for locals to see the latest dining information is the basis for Wikipedia articles". I've promoted ~50 Portland restaurant articles to Good status. This sort of collaboration and review involves many other editors. We don't need to group all Portland restaurant articles together, let's please focus on this single entry in this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. The above arguments about WP:OTHERSTUFF are irrelevant. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no space limit. If someone makes the effort to write good articles about Portland restaurants, why not keep them? NemesisAT (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORG does specifically exclude local coverage though. Fram (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Echoing what NemesisAT stated above. I also want to add that the publications used in the article are not solely local. The Oregonian is the largest paper by circulation in Oregon and the second largest by circulation in the Pacific Northwest. To write it off as solely local is disingenuous. Also, why should article creator be punished for focusing their attention on a specific city? There's zero policies requiring someone to only create articles if there are similar numbers of articles in other cities. Definitely an OTHERSTUFF argument; lets focus on the notability of this establishment and this article. --Kbabej (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wolfe[edit]

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

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- speechwriter role is not automatically notable and WP:NAUTHOR isn't met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speech writers to governors are not inherently notable, and nothing else is a clear claim to notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, per nom and WP: GNG. True to form, (as it states he was a resume writer early on) this reads somewhat like WP:RESUME & WP:ADMASQ. Additionally, for what it’s worth, the creator of the page was a WP:SPE until yesterday. NiklausGerard (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, WP:SPA not WP:SPE. NiklausGerard (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draft. to give Comet0 time to work on it. Nom is fine and this solves to deletion !votes. Name can be agreed on if & when it comes back to mainspace. Star Mississippi 01:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics)[edit]

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

I've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". It was undeleted following a request by User:Comte0 who added a reception section here. While this is a good start, I am afraid the coverage found does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Can this be rescued? A proper AfD discussion should tell. On a side note, please not this is the first album in a series (Template:Valérian and Laureline) and most of the articles about albums form this series are just plot summaries, and should likewise be reviewed. If this is kept, it should be renamed to Bad Dreams (comic) or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comics) for my own WP:BEFORE search. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Comte0 Setting aside my mediocre French, copyright prevents me from seeing what's inside - I get a mostly unreadable snippet, no view, and blanked page. Can you access the soruces to confirm whether there is WP:SIGCOV coverage of the book? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.

[26] says: 'Initially created uniquely for this first episode, the character of Laureline proved popular with readers and so was incorporated as a permanent fixture of the series (Pomerleau 1980: 63)'
[27]: 'Christin and Mézières' acerbically written and expressively drawn science fictionstory marked the debut of the iconic French comics characters Valerian and Laureline. Warmly received, the story led to further assignments for Christin and Mézières'
Those are passing mentions, I'm not sure whether it counts for notability. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMICS has been notified. Comte0 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The French village pump has been notified. Comte0 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment author's BEFORE sources look plausible, but my French is really not good enough for a definitive assessment. Do we have a fr.wiki article? Jclemens (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: There is: fr:Les Mauvais Rêves - It does not have many references, though. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also a request to the French equivalent of WP:COMICS went unanswered. I suspect that project is somewhat abandoned. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the time being to List of Valérian and Laureline books. A search for the French title in e.g. Google scholar and Google books lead to a number of hits, but in a very preliminary overview with my limited grasp of French I did not see enough to warrant a stand-alone article. (What's in this?) But I do think it warrants an extension of the very short summary at the proposed target, and the reception should be preserved. I am happy to change my opinion in case someone finds more substantial sources. Daranios (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "If this is kept, it should be renamed to Bad Dreams (comic) or such. " Bad idea. We have an article called Bad Dreams (Winnick comics), that covers a 2014 miniseries. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice. Well, then Bad Dreams (Valérian and Laureline). Or even Bad Dreams (Christin and Mézières comic) (singular). The current 'comics' just grates on me every time I see this article's name :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Due to personal reasons, I won't be able to work on that article till May 6th. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully endorse draftifying this for now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dayanand Bhartiya Public Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lorstaking 17:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. 06:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FORUDEF[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. A prod was removed in 2017. SL93 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Cameroon. SL93 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a local (that is, not a national) NGO without any substantial secondary source coverage in either English or French. agtx 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. Rhadow (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not draftfying this because a version exists there already. Please work on that and get a neutral, independent reviewer before restoring this. Star Mississippi 01:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jalen Hooks[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Draft version Draft:Jalen Hooks has not been approved, and was previously declined here and here. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. A case of WP:TOSOON. I would say draftify but there is already a draft on him. Of the sources in the article, only this one from the Indianapolis Star goes towards GNG. I also found these two [28][29] but all three articles are written in a span of two months so this is hardly sustained coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi I have also attached articles from Slam Magazine ( The Largest basketball magazine in the world) as well as cbs sports, GQ, and Sports Illustrated. I believe these meet the requirements of WP:GNG as they spread out the coverage and add to the notability. Tycet (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Not independent, and the tone made me consider WP:ADMASQ. I agree that due to the existence of an additional draft which will likely make its way to the mainspace in time, this one is not needed, as a draft or otherwise. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NiklausGerard I have also attached articles from Slam Magazine ( The Largest basketball magazine in the world) as well as cbs sports, GQ, and Sports Illustrated. I believe these meet the requirements of WP:GNG as they spread out the coverage and add to the notability. Tycet (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SNOW. After tightening of WP:NSPORTS, high school kids are rarely notable. Certainly, this is a case of WP:COI/WP:PAID and @Tycet: have to declare that (and stay away from mainspace edits). 67.48.64.101 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dillingham is on the same team and is less notable than this athlete I don't understand why this is having action taken against it. Tycet (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tycet At least, he has a gold medal. As I said, you're connected with him that's why you're bias towards him. Please comply with WP:COI if you want this article in mainspace. 67.48.64.101 (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the compliance. Tycet (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, besides what's above, I found [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] and [35]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tallia Storm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously deleted for lack of notability Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallia Storm (2nd nomination) last year was recreated from a redirect on the same page, but notability doesn't appear to be any more significant. Have tried Speedy as I believed the article was a recreation, but admin assures it is not. I'm also still concerned that it's been created at least in part by a copy paste without edit history of the original article as well. Still fails WP:NMUSIC and fails WP:CELEBRITY.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the garbage sources out of habit and removed the content it was attempting to source which leaves us with an article that's pretty much the same as the last two afds. CUPIDICAE💕 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has failed to do anything notable since appearing on stage at an EJ concert in scotland a few years ago, resulting in this article and some A&R work by a SPA editor. Fails GNG and the flimsy PR sources currently in the article really dont cut the mustard. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question Would this piece in The Mirror be relevant, or do we consider tabloid coverage to be not adding to notability? Genuine question, not my usual type of article to comment on. https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meet-tallia-storm-celebs-dating-11992628 CT55555 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not really, it doesn't say anything beyond the few better sources that exist, it doesn't enhance her notability in any way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep Could use better sourcing, I find reviews of her albums in the Guardian and Teen Vogue, starting on page 3 of a GSearch. Diving in to page 17 of the GSearch, there's a write up of her relationships in Huff Post UK. Most of what turns up are unreliable tabloids that we can't accept for notability purposes (what she's wearing, how revealing her clothing is), but there seems to be just enough otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get reviews of either of her albums on a Google search with site: Theguardian.com or site:teenvogue.com. There is a review of her novel on the guardian, but it's user submitted.

The Problem with other sources is that her mother runs a PR company and leverages that position to get write ups (particularly in Huff Post UK) but they're generally of incidental stuff. Who she's dated isn't acceptable for notability purposes. Even the fact she has two albums (even if an actual review can be found) still falls well below our notability requirements for a musician, the world is full of musical artists who (like her) have never charted but have had a bit of incidental coverage in a newspaper article somewhere. They don't have articles, and on that basis neither should she. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there are tabloid stories about her relationships and brief mentions elsewhere but I'm really not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shemaroo Entertainment as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shemaroo Umang[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and India. DMySon (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from the Economic Times reference, all other references seem to a press release. The parent company, Shemaroo Entertainment Media Network is definitely notable, but this is not. It looks like this page is trying to drive notability from the parent company, but as per WP:INHERIT, it does not comply.--Trolli Onida (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shemaroo Entertainment: Most sources are press releases or slightly edited press releases. Nothing to support notability for an independent article, redirect to parent company. Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milec family Zoo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find any sources for its English and Croatian name. The Croatian article only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails verification. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mitsuru Adachi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bōken Shōnen[edit]

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

While Mitsuru Adachi is a notable author, I don't think this volume is notable too, and is still unreferenced for a very long time since its creation. - Xexerss (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitsuru Adachi largely per nom. It appears like the series was licensed in Italy and Korea, though I don't know many good places to look for Manga reviews in either of those languages. The websites I do know in Italian that seem to be okay are it:AnimeClick.it and it:Everyeye.it, but the only meaningful thing I found was this list of popular Seinen manga, which is definitely not significant coverage. It is definitely possible that more sources exist, but I don't know any other good places to look. Link20XX (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on merger target, but there appears to be a consensus that is the solution. The remainder can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Track Path[edit]

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

Not sourced. I couldn't find any sources beyond random non-notable Internet encyclopedias, some of which are just re-hosting this article. There has been an unresolved "no sources" template attached since 2014, and the last non-trivial edits to the article were in the same year (there was one trivial maintenance edit in 2020). Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article subject is mentioned in the DVD+R DL article (Dual-layer recording section). Sourcing there is not stellar, but it could serve as an ideal redirect target (Opposite Track Path looks like a plausible search term). Pavlor (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OTP can be used in dual-layer DVDs generally, including commercial pressing as well as both the -R and +R recordable formats. It's not exclusive to the +R specification nor has any special significance there, so that doesn't seem like the most correct target for a hypothetical redirect. (As an aside, I'm actually a bit surprised that one specific recordable DVD specification is notable enough to have its own article in the first place.)
  In my opinion there is not a great case for a redirect anyway. The Opposite Track Path page averages less than one view per day and the top Google hit for "opposite track path" is that page. (Additionally, the next two hits are each verbatim re-hosts.) Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every source that I can lay my hands on in 2 minutes, including Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PCs, treats OTP and PTP together. The sensible place for this would seem to be DVD#Dual-layer discs, because that's how Mueller (ISBN 9780133105360 pages 556–557) and other sources treat it too. It isn't there now, and clearly a merger is in order.
That said: Techn1ciaN-A1- please crack some books some time. There are books that cover this subject from ISBN 9780596005887 page 318 through ISBN 9780071420389 pages 31–32 and ISBN 9780071663472 page 249 to ISBN 9780071423984 page 7—27. If you couldn't find any sources at all, you weren't looking correctly. The WWW is not the only thing to search.
Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; I should have been clearer. I meant that I "couldn't find any sources" in the WP:N sense, not in the WP:V sense. As you point out, reliable sources only treat the subject as one part of the broader DVD topic.
  I didn't think to suggest a merge because the Opposite Track Path article has no substantive sourced content at all, so there's nothing that would be straightforward to drop into the DVD article as-is (to my understanding), unless the DVD article already has references that would verify the text.
  One other thing: The OTP article text suggests that the PTP / OTP distinction is also relevant to Blu-rays. If that is true and the OTP article does have mergeable content, would it be appropriate to also merge that content into the Blu-ray article at the same time?
  Thanks for your input, Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is content already there verifiable from books. Not citing sources does not mean unverifiable. It just means more effort for the poor editors, us, who come along later long after something has been written, 14 years in this case, to find sources and check that what was written was right and fix it if it is not. Personally, I'm inclined towards the same solution that I took with Online (AfD discussion) and Off-line (AfD discussion) 16 years ago: handle PTP and OTP/RSDL as one. Discuss two sides of the same coin as one. Here's there's an obvious place that doesn't require a stand-alone article. An example of things to fix when merging: ISBN 9780071663472 page 303 says that PTP does not apply to Blu-Ray. That solves the problem of merger targets. All of this can be done without administrator tools, without administrator involvement, and thus without AFD. It just takes a little research, to check that the content is supportable and either support it or correct it, and the willingness to write. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the content. There is reasonable conversation as to whether it should be kept as a standalone or merged, but that does not require continued AfD where no one is arguing for the deletion of the material. Star Mississippi 01:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Grocer's Encyclopedia[edit]

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

Only reference is just a link to the book, and I can't find anything in a WP:BEFORE check (including checking Newspapers.com) to satisfy WP:NBOOK. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some potential references:
- "Ward's Encyclopedia of Foods". The Hotel Monthly. 31: 78. 1923.
- Smith, Andrew (2013). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. Vol. 1. p. 48.
- "New Encyclopedia of Food". The Tea and Coffee Trade Journal. 45 (1): 90. July 1923.
- "New Books: The Encyclopedia of Foods and Beverages". The Progressive Teacher and Southwestern School Journal. 23 (4): 6. April 1917.

Apart from the recent Oxford volume, I'm not sure how independent these reviews are, but there are many more in contemporary journals. pburka (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning towards a keep here, as the sourcing I'm able to pull up gives off the strong impression that there was more coverage back in its day, that coverage just isn't online. It's used relatively frequently as a source in more modern day works, which kind of reinforces this. This is one where I doubt we'll be able to pull up much online without access to databases and some serious digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also mentions like this, which further reinforce that it seems to have been relatively influential in its day. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On Newspapers.com (account needed) there's mention of various outlets that gave it good reviews. I'm not sure if those are just blurbs or reviews, but given the other sourcing I'm leaning towards them likely being reviews. Again, this is a situation where searching is hampered by it just not being online. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - The first of these appears to be a fairly trivial mention of the book to me, and the second sort of borders on advertising IMO. I agree that there may have been more substantial coverage back in the day, but at the same time we ought to verify that such sources really exist. AviationFreak💬 03:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge >>> Artemas Ward (writer) (whose article would be made more comprehensive with inclusion). Djflem (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "The Grocer's Cyclopedia. By Artemas Ward. Published by the Author. $10" (PDF). The Nation. Vol. 98, no. 2541. 1914-03-12. pp. 272–273. ISSN 0027-8378. EBSCOhost 14254653.
  I uploaded a copy of the article to File:The Nation (1914-03-12), volume 98, number 2541, pages 272–273.pdf. The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1914.
  A copy of the 1914 The Nation article
  
  The article notes:
  Believing that the grocers and general shopkeepers of the United States greatly needed a book giving information regarding their business, Artemas Ward issued, in 1882, “The Grocer’s Handbook”. It was so crude a performance that he now feels ashamed of it. During the three decades that have since passed, he has diligently gathered material for a better book, the result being “The Grocer’s Encyclopedia;” a large volume of 748 pages, which treats of more than 1,200 subjects. The author’s activity, for twenty years, as editor of the National Grocer, gave him unusual opportunities, which he supplemented writing letters of inquiry to all parts of the globe. The result is a work of great value and interest—a book indispensable to intelligent distributers of foods and at the same time of importance to housewives, who would less frequently have inferior articles foisted on them if they knew just what to ask for and how to judge quality. In these pages they can find out when different fishes are in season; what are the best coffees, teas, potatoes, apples, wines, and so on. There are twelve pages on cheese, with descriptions of forty-eight varieties; twenty on coffee, with a color-page showing twelve varieties. Altogether, there are 449 illustrations, eighty of which are full-page plates in color; some of these are purely ornamental, but most of them are useful, as e.g., the four which show the most important cuts of beef. Under Canned Goods many will be surprised to read that, while in the matter of quantity we hold the record, in variety Europe surpasses us, Holland having canneries which put up several hundred kinds of edibles. Incidentally, there is a great deal of miscellaneous information, such as how to cook bacon, how to eat mangoes, how to test butter. There are also general articles of use to all business men, such as Trade-Marks, Partnerships, Good Will, Window-Dressing. The subject of adulteration is not treated as fully as it might be; nor does the author dwell as he should on the advantages of refrigeration over freezing.
2. "'Grocer's Encyclopedia'—rare glimpse of the pre-hoagy days". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 1977-09-08. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Back in 1911, when William Howard Taft was President and a wooden stapladder sold for 27 cents, a 748-page book entitled "The Grocer's Encyclopedia" was first published. ... Today, 66 years later, the encyclopedia is not only a book collector's delight — bringing upwards of $50 each at public sales — but its contents opens an interesting window to a slice of bygone Americana. Beginning with a brief dissertation on the Abalone, the book literally spans the entire diet of the early 20th century; discussing staples that are still popular today, despite the current "junk food" craze, as well as edibles that have long since passed out of most diets."
3. "A Grocer's Encyclopedia as a Christmas present". Simmons' Spice Mill. Spice Mill Publishing Company. December 1913. p. 1279. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Google Books.
  The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1913. The article notes:
  A GROCER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA AS A CHRISTMAS PRESENT
  A Christmas present that is suitable under all conditions for everyone in the grocery business is a copy of Artemas Ward's "Grocer's Encyclopedia." Mrs. Grocer could not surprise her husband with anything that he would enjoy more—nor anything that would be of more practical aid to him in his business. Mr. Grocer could not present his chief salesman with anything more likely to stimulate his interest in the business and increase his selling efficiency. Or, the salesmen can club together and give it to the boss. An addition advantage is the fact that Mrs. Grocer and Mrs. Salesman will find as much interest and practical information in it as will their husbands.
  The grocer or grocery salesman who possesses a copy of "The Grocer's Encyclopedia" need never feel embarrassed by any questions pumped at him by a housekeeper of enquiring mind for that fine work will answer them all. Caviar types, truffles of different countries, mushrooms of all varieties, fancy liquors, any of a thousand wines, food names in five languages, etc.—anything and everything one may want to know is there.
  This is really a wonderful work. The text treats on fully 1,200 subjects, covering all kinds of foods—their habitat, cultivation, preparation for market, quality and grades—and containing many inside trade "pointers," which are of practical value in buying. The work is illustrated with 80 full page beautiful color plates of tropical fruits, nuts, cheeses, meats, game birds, etc., and hundreds of photographs showing food growing and preparation in all parts of the world.
  Its handsome appearance makes it additionally suitable for a holiday gift. It contains 748 pages 11 x 8½ inches in size, printed on heavy calendered paper, and strongly bound in buckram. It is said that it cost more than $50,000 to produce this book, but it sells for $10 per copy, delivery prepaid. Orders may be sent to The Spice Mill Publishing Co., 97 Water St., New York.
4. "Appropriate Christmas Gift". The Retail Grocers' Advocate. Vol. 19, no. 48. 1914-11-27. p. 19. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Google Books.
  The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1914. The article notes:
  Appropriate Christmas Gift
  A Christmas gift that is sure of an appreciative welcome by anyone in the grocery business is a copy Artemas Ward's "GROCER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA." It possesses double meri— as a reference work of high value and a volume full of entertainment to eye and mind.
  The advance of the business during the last few years renders it essential that the modern grocer and his employees keep themselves thoroughly informed and up-to-date, and nothing is more likely to stimulate the interest of the salesman than the fascinating light which this book throws on many phases of the grocer's calling and on innumerable items of his stock.
  Supposing that Santa Claus is working in the opposite direction—one may suggest that Mr. Gorcer could not surprise her husband with any thing that he would enjoy more—nor anything that would be of more practical aid to him in his business. Or, the salesmen club together and give it to the boss.
  Whether it is either, or both, Mr. Grocer and Mr. Salesman receiving the book as a Christmas remembrance, an additional and very delightful advantage is the fact that Mrs. Grocer and Mrs. Salesman will find as much interest and practical information in it as will their husbands. Such a combination is altogether too rich and too unusual to be passed by, when the cost is only a ten dollar bill.
  The grocer or grocery salesman who possesses a copy of The Grocer's Encyclopedia need never feel embarrassed by any questions pumped at him by a housekeeper of enquiring mind, for that magnificent work will answer them all. The text treats on fully 1200 subjects, covering kinds of foods—their habitat, cultivation, preparation for market, quality and grades—and containing inside trade "pointers," which are of practical value in buying and caring for goods, which you can obtain nowhere else.
  It is illustrated with 80 full-page color plates of fruits, nuts, cheeses, meats, game birds, etc., which the N. Y. Press describes as "the most beautiful that ever appeared in a work of encyclopedic character," and hundreds of photographs showing food growing and preparation in all parts of the world.
  The book contains 748 pages 11x8½ inches in size, printed on heavy calendered paper, and strongly bound in buckram.
  Its handsome appearance and wealth of illustrations make it a well-nigh ideal holiday gift.
  It is said that it cost more than %50,000 to produce, but it sells for $10, delivery paid. Send your order to the Retail Grocers' Advocate Bldg., San Francisco, California.
5. Ward, Gilbert Oakley (1926) [1911]. The Practical Use of Books and Libraries: An Elementary Manual (4 ed.). The F. W. Faxon Company – via Google Books.
  The book is in the public domain because it was published in 1926. The book notes: "Ward. Encyclopedia of Food. Descriptive information on food products found in grocery stores. Written for grocers and general storekeepers, but useful to students of domestic science and commercial geography. Previous editions are published under the titles of Grocer's Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia of Foods and Beverages."
6. "Ward's Encyclopedia of Foods". The Hotel Monthly. August 1923. p. 78. Retrieved 2022-04-18.
  The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1923. The article notes:
  The Encyclopedia of Food, by Artemas Ward, is republished in a revised and enlarged form, the new book containing six hundred pages and thousands of illustrations. This is the most comprehensive and exhaustive presentation in book form of human foods that has ever been produced. The different foods are listed alphabetically, so that in reference to any particular kind of food all to do is to find the name in the alphabetical order The type is large and clear and the name of the food is given in a sidehead in black type for quick finding.
  There seems not to be a single item of food produced for market in any part of the world but what is given an exposition in this book, with interesting information as to where and how grown and the stages passed thru before reaching the family table. There are more than eighty full-page color plates picturing about two hundred different food subjects in their natural colors; and there are a thousand or more subjects illustrated in half tone pictures, many of them taken especially for this book. One who may be familiar with foods in a general way is apt to be astonished when turning the leaves of this encyclopedia to find how many things edible were unknown to him; and one is impressed with the gathering from all over the world to supply the ordinary family table of today. We learn of fish and flesh and fowl of vegetables and fruits, of fungi, of honey and tea and coffee, of cheese in many varieties, and, in fact everything for human sustenance and the pleasing of the palate.
  There is an appendix in the form of a dictionary of translations of food names in six languages—English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish. There are also translations from the German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish words into English, each arranged under their particular language. There is also an alphabetical list of culinary and bill of fare terms.
  In the preface to his book Mr. Ward gives credit to Charles Martyn for the revision of the text and bringing the book in this respect to its present authoritative stage. Hotel people will remember Mr. Martyn from his former connection with hotel newspapers—in particular the many years he was editor of the New York Caterer. Another man to whom the author gives praise for valuable services in the production of this volume is Herman Eggeling, who is responsible for fifty or more of the colored plates and their exposition of the natural appearance of the different foods.
  The book sells for $10.00.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Grocer's Encyclopedia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No objection against merging into the author's page. pburka (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I oppose a merge as there is enough material in The Grocer's Encyclopedia to justify a standalone article. A merge of the entire article to Artemas Ward (writer) would be undue weight. The book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria based on the substantial coverage in reliable sources I have provided including a review in The Nation. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cunard: I've looked over those sources and I'm not convinced that most of them aren't just advertisements. Two of them specifically mention the book as a good Christmas gift, the Inquirer mention doesn't list an author and it appears to be the only "story" on a page full of advertisements, and page 78 of the Hotel Monthly source you linked appears to just be an ad for ovens alongside listings of business transactions. Google Books shows no results for "Grocer's Encyclopedia" in that source, but I'm likely just missing it. I don't think these sources stand up to the bar of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. AviationFreak💬 20:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was certainly a different style of reviewing books in that era, and it's hard to tell what might be paid content. But the review in The Nation is critical ("The subject of adulteration is not treated as fully as it might be; nor does the author dwell as he should on the advantages of refrigeration over freezing."), and the more modern Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America is certainly independent. I'm confused by your claim that The Inquirer coverage isn't independent: what's their hidden motivation to write about a book that had been out of print for at least half a century? pburka (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's true about The Inquirer - Hadn't checked the date there. AviationFreak💬 01:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first four sources shared by Cunard appear to show significant coverage. I oppose a merge as the subject meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hurlbert[edit]

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

Article cites three databases as references. According to recent changes in NSPORT, databases are no longer SIGCOV. Whiteguru (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. Whiteguru (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Name seems fairly common, but can't find non-database coverage of the subject. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newspaper results are only returning box scores. No substance with which to write an encyclopedic article exists. Wikipedia is not Racing-reference. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja 'Asian Moon'[edit]

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

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose. I found no WP:SIGCOV of this cultivar on a search and my source analysis shows that what's in the article is insufficient for keeping it:

Primary source from breeders
The only reliable and independent source in the article
Commercial product listings are usually not accepted as indications of notability
Not independent - "Garden Debut" program that the cultivar was released under is owned by Greenleaf (see [36])
Both sources in ref 5 are lists of cultivars approved for use by the state, not significant coverage
Garden Debut is not independent, see #4, and the Sooner Plant Farm is another commercial listing, see #3 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on extensive precedent. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune[edit]

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

This would be fine in DRAFT space, but creator moved in despite @Hatchens:' decline, so we're here. There is no evidence that this school is notable. Incubate in draft space until such time as notability is established with independent, reliable sources. Star Mississippi 01:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MBA Institute pages are very relevant for a large number of B-School aspirants in India. Keep - The article looks unbiased and serves all guidelines 122.169.6.163 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)— 122.169.6.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: as per nom. And, the content should be merged to Symbiosis International University. - Hatchens (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SIMS, Pune is an independent Business School under the Symbiosis International University . Similar B-Schools like Symbiosis Institute of Business Management Pune and Symbiosis Institute of Business Management Bangaluru (constituent colleges of SIU ) have their individual pages on Wikipedia. Merging Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies Pune with Symbiosis International University would lead to confusion. Suggestion is Keep. Pryi1499 (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~The references come from internationally reputed Indian publications and are properly cited. Suggest Keep Vishal.Negi7 (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)~~ — Vishal.Negi7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Merge - An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this article does not, except as a branch of the university, which has its own article.
- The originator appears to be trying to game the system by moving the draft into article space after it was rejected, without discussing with the reviewer.
- The status of other business schools is irrelevant, as other stuff exists, a deprecated argument. (Nominate them for deletion also).

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute talks about being India's only higher education business school for defence personnel and their family, which speaks about why its notable (India has one pf the world's largest Defence force in place. Properly cited. Keep. Priyashi1599 (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)— Priyashi1599 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like an even split between deletion, merger and draftifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, a small private business school. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a bit of clean-up, but it does appear to be a notable topic. There's this coverage from the Hindustan Times and this from the Indian Express. It's also interesting that the Indian Defence Minister gave a lecture about war and terrorism there in 2018, suggesting it is a fairly important institution. AusLondonder (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several Indian central government leaders have given talks at the Institute including the defence minister, Road Transport minister and former Railways minister, seems quite notable . - Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.165.168.36 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — 103.165.168.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepThe institute definitely seems notable, though the article needs editing to meet MOS:LEAD guideline. I will be happy to edit if it says.--Trolli Onida (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Pryi1499 and Vishal.Negi7 are sock puppets of Priyashi1599. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
shocked. Utterly shocked! I was waiting for a little more to file an SPI, so thanks for handling. Star Mississippi 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited by AusLondonder do not, in my opinion, support the claim of significant independent coverage. The first was an interview with an administrator. The second read like a puff piece written entirely from the school's press release. Rockphed (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Total Linhas Aéreas Flight 5561[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Total Linhas Aereas Flight 5561

Articles for deletion/Total Linhas Aéreas Flight 5561

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

Tragic but not notable cargo plane crash. Cargo plane accidents are quite common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The accident and the subsequent investigation led to changes in the flight procedures for the ATR-42 and ATR-72 aircraft, with the addition of new emergency procedures, new maintenance requirements for the aircraft, and new training and flight regulations for the airline involved. These aren't presently in the English version of the article, but the Portuguese version of the article ("Mudanças" section) goes over those changes at length. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a notable plane crash but it changed the flight procedures of the ATR's like @RecycledPixels: said above, and on the final report, when i read when i was adding the "Mudanças" part, while making the portuguese article, i saw i remember around 6 changes on the report. Iyusi766 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on my reading on the Portuguese article (that should be added to the English wiki) significant changes are being made after the result of the incident. For instance: including an emergency procedure regarding the triggering of the elevator trim, revising current technical publication of the aircraft, changing how the elevator trim for ATR aircraft is certified, and improving crew management. SunDawn talk 08:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm not sure why the fact that it was a cargo flight would make it less notable, and I question the notion implied by the proposer that cargo flight accidents are more common than passenger flight ones. The aircraft type involved is indeed far more commonly used as a passenger airliner, and any technical factor in any accident on the type would likely affect the entire fleet and the hundreds of thousands of passenger it transports. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there should be no elevation of notability for passenger-carrying aircraft. An airliner was lost with all on board. Changes were made post-accident. Thus it meets our notability threshold. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incident appears to have had a lasting impact as a result of the subsequent investigation and changes made NemesisAT (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of Keep votes but can this be reflected in article improvement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needing improvement is not a reason to delete an article via AfD. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technology brokering[edit]

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

It's possible this topic is notable but a BEFORE shows the term is the work of one author cited here and the article looks to have been stealth promotion of the company IDEO, see earlier revisions for even more content about them. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the article is of really poor quality. This is a business concept (undoubtedly unrelated to the company listed here). What seems to be the original publication naming this concept is:

Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I., 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative science quarterly, pp.716-749.

which has nearly 4000 cites on Google Scholar. There are many other publications by Hargadon that expound on the concept, but also ones by others:

Laudone, R., Liguori, E.W., Muldoon, J. and Bendickson, J., 2015. Technology brokering in action: revolutionizing the skiing and tennis industries. Journal of Management History.
Dell'Era, C. and Verganti, R., 2013. Relational strategies to connect technology and design: technology brokering and mediating. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 9(1), pp.10-25.

etc. You can see it has become a business buzzword: IBO, Huffpost, a book. Lamona (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist, with the hopes of some additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it may well have started as a stealth promotion it has now been cleaned up and Lamona has demonstrated notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Linux Game Publishing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple (network layer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lacks coverage in independent sources. Could not locate any sources outside of wiki mirrors on Google. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check duckduckgo?

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MjAyMQ Rlink2 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Linux Game Publishing. The article only documents its use in games of that publisher and the technology now seems to not be actively developed. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Deleted by admin per WP:G12 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSpecs: Specification For Low Voltage Internal Electrical Installation[edit]

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

i dunno what wikispecs is/was but WP:NOTMANUAL probably applies and we don't need to be copying product booklets wholesale. CUPIDICAE💕 01:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not for manuals and as copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Hall (navy sailor)[edit]

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

Moved from draft by C&P and after decline but without much in the way of improvement (if any). There is still an item in draft and this should be developed if possible. Eagleash (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete not a notable soldier and i'd bet money this is copied content from somewhere else. CUPIDICAE💕 01:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable, and that's just one of its many failings. If only people understood that when they insist on moving declined drafts into the main space against advice, these inevitably end up here in AfD, which does nothing to help the article get published; quite the opposite. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:GNG. The author should not have moved this out of draftspace. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an obit for a worthy but completely non-notable person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleteper WP:A7. Zero claim to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Deleted by admin per WP:G11 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kizbrax[edit]

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

This self-authored biography was speedily deleted because he is a non-notable musician. After deletion, it was recreated with no improvements by the musician, but it still fails the notability test. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two previous deletions were made yesterday, one by Sdrqaz and the other by Bbb23. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an African IP was involved, as may be seen at User talk:197.186.5.146. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, and so fails both Verifiability and Notability.
- A BLPPROD would be in order, but we are here, and this AFD is also in order.
- SALT in view of the history indicated by the nominator.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published bio does not meet WP:GNG. Salting is an option. DMySon (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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