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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Swear[edit]

The Swear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable band, no sources, almost no reference to the band online. WP:MUSIC   Kadzi   (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with this momination. No news is available. Zeddedm (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Band is currently on tour with David Cook, just released a new album. Plenty of references online and all music is current. Songs have appeared on major TV shows. https://www.theswear.com/tour Lead singer has written hit songs and won major contests. 2601:483:4A80:6E00:48A5:D7C6:AD98:643A (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being on tour doesn't make them notable. The link you gave doesn't say anything about them being on tour with David Cook, and even if they are, they don't inherit any notability from him per WP:NINHERITED. The band doesn't inherit notability from Elizabeth Elkins either (who doesn't have an article), but if two band members were independently notable that would be a pass of WP:BAND criterion #6. SpinningSpark 15:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although the band have been around for a while, there appears to be no sognificant coverage about them. The article has no references, and I can find nothing that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 7 August 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 00:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisourcing[edit]

Acquisourcing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:DICDEF article about a neologism that isn't even mentioned in the cited sources. I can't find any significant coverage of the term online, and thus falls short of WP:GNG. Redirecting to Acqui-hiring doesn't seem appropriate, as the only commonality is that they are portmanteaus about practices associated with business acquisitions, and "acquisourcing" is not mentioned in any capacity at Acqui-hiring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominator's rationale. I also failed to find usage of the term. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:50, 1 August 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 23:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, definitely not a notable term, fails WP:SIGCOV. No coverage of any kind found in reliable sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:27, 3 August 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 which does not preclude a discussion on the talk about whether it's worth covering elsewhere. Otherwise no objection to a renomination if someone thinks more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koogle[edit]

Koogle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Referencing and notability issues. Andrevan@ 15:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found [1] on search, along with various nostalgia blogs. I think it passes WP:NPRODUCT as a reasonable CFORK of Kraft. BrigadierG (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This feels like a somewhat trivial mention. I think we need more. Andrevan@ 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably doesn't even rate a redirect to Kraft Foods. The nextweb source above is a bare mention, everything else is just blogs. valereee (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It gets short entries in From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century [2] and Creamy and Crunchy: An Informal History of Peanut Butter, the All-American Food [3]. I'm seeing a <amended>Consumer Reports article</amended> in a lot of bibliographies entitled "Koogle: Does it Pass the Peanut Butter Test?", for instance it is the reference to this passing mention, but I haven't found an online copy. It was clearly well known in the 1970s and heavily advertised on TV, but I suspect there is only material for a very short page available now, unless Kraft publish some of their primary source material revealing its history and why they took it off the market. SpinningSpark 15:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These all seem like passing trivial mentions. Andrevan@ 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An entry in an encyclopaedia under a headword is not a passing mention, even if short, because the entry is about that topic. In Wikipedia, we might call such entries stubs. The Consumer Reports article I referred to is definitely not a passing mention, it's just not online. One can't write a magazine article on a product and then only mention it. SpinningSpark 06:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Informal History seems like a passing mention, though, no? It's basically an entry on a timeline, the entirety of which, 2 sentences, reads: 1975 - Kraft introduces Koogle, the first commercial flavored peanut spread, in four flavors, cinnamon, banana, chocolate, and vanilla. Consumer Reports turns thumbs down, saying, "Nutrition and taste argue against buying Koogle." Based on that, do we really need to go find this Consumer Reports review? And yes the entry in Pop Culture Encyclopedia seems to indeed be a stub, which is kind of another way of saying trivial, it's also 2 sentences, verbatim is: "Peanut Butter Koogle with the goo goo googly eyes!" A Baby Boomer lunchtime favorite in the 1970s was the peanut butter spread in a jar with swirls of chocolate, banana, cinnamon, or strawberry jelly mixed in. I guess they liked it better than Consumer's. I still think this is a trivial mention - the "encyclopedia" itself is 560 pages, I think it's more of a pop coffee table book IMHO, not World Book or Britannica. It feels like a huge stretch to me still. Andrevan@ 07:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My vote was weak keep. It was weak for a reason. I already said in my initial post these entries were short. There is no need for you to carry on picking over it and creating a wall of text over something I already know and have already said. SpinningSpark 07:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpletilskinz[edit]

Rumpletilskinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage for the band and their only album. This is a double nomination with What Is a Rumpletilskin?. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (both group and album). As a pre-Internet act they possibly received coverage in old hardcopy magazines, and if anyone can find something I might be persuaded to change my vote. But for now, I can find nothing reliable about the group's career overall, nor any confirmation that a couple of songs reached the Billboard rap chart. Their album has occasional online reviews of variable reliability, such as [4], [5]. They might have some more out there, but perhaps not enough to get over WP's significant coverage hurdle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't find any significant coverage that would lead me to believe they can pass WP:NBAND, WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 8 August 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 00:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reloliza Saimon[edit]

Reloliza Saimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:21, 1 August 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 00:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Chloé Cahoon[edit]

Katherine Chloé Cahoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable author and television reporter. Reads like a résumé. Not finding much in WP:BEFORE outside of fluff interviews, not seeing anything of note on Newspapers.com or Google News. Penale52 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:18, 1 August 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!} 22:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Hari[edit]

Yogi Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Orphaned BLP lacking inline citations. FAdesdae378 22:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The creator of the page has only made 4 edits, 3 of which where to this page. FAdesdae378 22:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he was an aviator, I don't find any sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Source here in Hinduism Today[6], but I'm having trouble finding much of anything else.--Jahaza (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find any sources. Spudlace (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:19, 8 August 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 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Muzenda[edit]

Ignatius Muzenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP of a businessman whose main claim to fame is his distinguished parents, but notability is not inherited. There’s nothing really substantial here to support a stand alone bio, and nothing worth merging into the article about his father. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Zimbabwe. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:29, 1 August 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!} 06:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. H. Properties[edit]

T. H. Properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minor house builder that went into Chapter 11. The other assertion of notability is otherwise feeble;

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Their financial problems in 2009 triggered some local coverage " Towns attempt to assist owners of THP homes" but neither that nor coverage of legal action around the Wynstone development, nor any other coverage demonstrates that the company (currently THP Homes) has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:54, 2 August 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!} 22:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dcode[edit]

Dcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability under WP:NCORP. Would be fine re-draftifying back to @Ahatd: draftspace, but there's only one source here that's definitely independent (TRT World). The TechBoiler and techtaalk were clearly just copied/rewritten from the same press release, and the PhoneWorld piece is an advertisement. Startup Pakistan has similar advertising/fluff issues. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Pakistan. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  – I think Startup Pakistan is mirroring these "press releases" on Phone World and Propakistani, so not RS. But will disagree that pieces on techtaalk and techBioler are press releases, there's nothing I can find on internet being published with same or similar content, so can argue that techtaalk (published 28 Oct) copied techBioler's independent piece (published 25 oct). As far as this phone World's article is concerned, this doesn't look advertisement to me (specially due to ending comments by writer and site's history of mentioning "press releases" as in this case for very same dcode. Thanks AHatd (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue with the techBoiler and techtaalk pieces is that they're almost identical to each other. Compare A new contender has stepped up in the smartphone market known as Dcode. The company is found in Pakistan with its manufacturing plant in Karachi. It is the first smartphone brand that is manufacturing flagship-level Android smartphones in Pakistan. to A new contender has stepped up in the smartphone market known as “Dcode”. The company is founded in Pakistan with its headquarters based in Karachi. It is Pakistan’s first homegrown smartphone brand that manufactures flagship-level Android phones locally. That's almost identical, just a couple words difference. If you go down the two pages, you see more of this: The phone is really modern looking. It resembles Samsung’s S20 Ultra from the back. Glass back and metal sides can be seen. versus The look of the phone is modern and it very much resembles Samsung S20 Ultra from the back side. This phone has a glass back and metal sides. They both probably got an info sheet and just published it "in their own words", especially since both say "Lets support Pakistani companies" at the end. And if one copied the other, that doesn't make it better. techtaalk is not a reliable source and has no editorial information or even author listed. As for PhoneWorld, there's a light grey "Advertisement" right under the first paragraph, and then again at the end of the piece. I'm assuming that refers to the piece, as there's no other advertisement that loads in those spots for me even without adblockers. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Like phoneWorld's article in the discussion, virtually each and every PhoneWorld article has that light grey "Advertisement" section thrice (at top, in body and at ending), like here and here. And as I already agreed that techtaalk copy/pasted techBioler opinion, so techtaalk can't be argued as WP:RS, but same is not true for techBioler. Thanks AHatd (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional Andre🚐 22:47, 8 August 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!} 22:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé (Belgian singer)[edit]

Chloé (Belgian singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I read the previous deletion discussion but I still do not believe this person meets the notability guidelines, so I have nominated it again. Sahaib (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for sources but did not find much except: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Sahaib (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I guess she works for an airline now, per Linkedin. Nothing of substance found in French sources, I don't think she's charted or released any singles. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe this article fails under WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite claims in the previous AfD that there were plenty of sources out there if people just looked, there has been absolutely no improvement in the article in 7 years [7], just formatting. She did not get the opportunity to represent her country (the notable endeavor) and now lives a normal life. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO as stated above. Grk1011 (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cant find any sources to verify her notability.Obermallen (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:41, 8 August 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 all except for Ghar-e Rubah Minining Complex, Iran Engineerging Company, Iran Rubberworks, Qazvin-Rasht Road Construction Company, Unity Cooperative Company and Ziaran Meat Packing Company deleted via PROD and Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan and Natanz Steel Plant removed from nomination list and Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr turned into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agro-Industry Complex[edit]

Agro-Industry Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mass-created article made in violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT based on the 2006 Iranian census, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 for all the gory details. The Iranian census gathered data by whatever the closest named landmark was, including pumps, factories, farms, bridges, individual houses and so-forth. Carlossuarez46 apparently realised that something was wrong in this case based on the name, but decided that this (and every other case like it) was really a "company town" despite no source actually saying so. As such this fails WP:GEOLAND#1 since it is not really a legally-recognised populated place, but instead a factory of some kind that census-takers have used as a reference point. The real standard that should be applied here is WP:CORP as it is a company/organisation of some kind. This article obviously fails that standard, as there is no evidence even of a WP:GNG pass much less the kind of coverage needed to pass WP:AUD/WP:CORPDEPTH.

Together with this article I am also nominating the articles on the following list, all of which appear to have been hoax/spam articles created by Carlossuarez46 using the same template and sourcing, and which Carlos also added to the "Company towns in Iran" category. As such bundling is justified per WP:BUNDLE. In all cases, the appropriate standard is WP:CORP since they are really companies/institutions and they fail that standard.

Coverage in Wiki-like sources like Citypedia.ir, Tageo, Geonames or similar sources does not remedy this issue as they are unreliable. GEOnet Names Server is also unreliable for the purpose of establishing a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass per the RSN discussion. Similarly, use of company/institutional websites cannot sustain a WP:CORP pass, nor can coverage in local press, or WP:MILL coverage. Some of the articles are accompanied by co-ordinates but it is not clear where these co-ordinates were obtained from and they often do not point to a site that is built on, but even when they do it is impossible to know what they point to without engaging in WP:OR. Even if the co-ordinates do indicate a village, it is impossible to know whether the village is known by the name in the article.

The only exception are articles like Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr which are about very notable topics . . . which are already covered entirely by other articles (e.g., Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant).

(PS - these will all be templated with AWB soon) FOARP (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close: WP:TRAINWRECK. It is impossible to conduct any semblance of a deletion discussion with a nomination of 216 (!) articles. This needs to be broken up into much smaller bundles. Curbon7 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do concur that it is more likely than not that they'll all be deleted, so this isn't as strong a trainwreck as, say WP:Articles for deletion/Mayoral elections. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete all: I'm skittish to delete 216 articles without taking a look at more than just a few, but I don't want to let procedure get in the way of deleting obviously non-notable articles. Curbon7 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most. Which is to say, delete all if they remain in their current state. If later contributions to this AfD individually identify some of them as having specifically identified additional sources that might plausibly cause them to meet WP:NCORP, then those ones can be kept or separately discussed. Do not break up the AfD into smaller bundles; in their current state, these are all much the same: geostubs, badly created by misinterpreting a database, and in need of either individual attention or deletion. There's no point in making AfD participants repeat the same opinion on them until they are no longer the same as each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all If someone identifies individual articles which have been expanded into something with adequate sourcing, fine, they can be kept if they pass GNG thereby. A check of some of fifteen of the more promising names produced only Natanz Steel Plant as having been expanded with sources, so it should be removed from this list and considered separately. The rest should be deleted as we have done so with the other mass-entered Iran census articles. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per David Eppstein. We can’t spend the next decade sifting through all this junk. If any individual articles deserve to be pulled out and saved, great. Otherwise the sooner we get rid of this detritus the better. Mccapra (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as the easiest, most straight forward way to deal with this mess. Yilloslime (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment Most of these pages have not been tagged. I have unilaterally redirected Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, we do not need to keep these "articles" around any longer with pointless bureaucracy. These are all the same article with the names and numbers scrambled. If one is greenlit to go, all of them should be. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment I have run AWB to tag all the pages except for Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr since it has been redirected. I also note that VersaceSpace had prodded the following pages on 26 July 2022:
  • Iran Rubberworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Qazvin-Rasht Road Construction Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Unity Cooperative Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ziaran Meat Packing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I have left the prod template up since it wasn't contested. I leave it to other editors to decide to de-prod them or have these articles deleted (since it is close to the 7 days for prods). – robertsky (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I recalled also Ghar-e Rubah Minining Complex and Iran Engineerging Company — notice also that these were misspelled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here for Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan which was also a page PRODed by VersaceSpace. The deprod was requested by Maometto97 a month back, which I accepted. The user then added more refs. If it needs a discussion, I would like it to be a separate AfD, and not bundled with this. Jay 02:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Happy to strike Natanz Steel, Bushehr Nuclear, and Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan from the list. I had reviewed Natanz steel and wasn’t sure the sourcing was a WP:CORP pass, but the strike coverage looks fairly notable. For the Defense Industry Complex in Isfahan, I do wonder how they know that the town they are talking about is the same thing as the generically-named industry complex. FOARP (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Defense Industry Complex in Isfahan: From the RfU request, I saw that the editor was connected to the place and stayed there for 5+ years. And I had suggested to add more reliable sources. Jay 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay - RE: Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan, having looked at the sourcing, it looks like the only reliable sources are reports of the same incident in which “martyrs” were buried there. It’s not really Sigcov of anything, neither the factories that are there for WP:Corps, nor the town for WP:GNG, nor proof of legal recognition for a WP:Geoland#1 pass. I’m happy to discuss separately but my !vote would still be delete. FOARP (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and start from scratch if there is anything worth the effort. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, I've seen many of these articles and I've questioned the quality and notability of them. Seems easiest to just start from scratch at this point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I checked a large amount of them and also thoroughly read the nomination rationale and agree with and reiterate every point of it. Also, GNG is not established and the SNG specifically excludes entities invented by census-taking processes. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't see any that has real sources and a real article. If anyone comes up with such they can be (re)created. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:V. Even if these do actually exist as populated places, we don't have any reliable sources to verify that fact, and the burden of proof is on those who want to keep the content. And frankly given the very small amount of content in each it would be easier to start again with the ones that do exist. Hut 8.5 17:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom Avilich (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet requirements of WP:CORP. Gusfriend (talk) 09:36, 7 August 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!} 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place of safety[edit]

Place of safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a very niche and specific construct of English law which could be summarised under Mental Health Act 1983 rather than its own article which may appear confusing to people not from England.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and England.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a very niche aspect of the Mental Health Act 1983 that is of crucial importance to people in mental health crisis. — The Anome (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or summarize under the Mental Health Act article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; by all means re-name/move to a name that indicates the term is being used within English law. The nomination combines two ideas: that the article is a narrow feature of law, and that it's confusing because it relates only to English law. Neither of these is appropriate: firstly Wikipedia has never shied away from articles about specific aspects of law, provided they're notable. Usually we include legal things if they are either important socially, or important legally (established precedents etc.). This one is about the right of the police to detain anyone apparently acting in a mentally-disordered way, which is of huge social relevance and widely written-about, so it's notable. Secondly, while the UK represents only a small part of the English speaking world, it is not yet such a fringe interest that it can be excluded from WP merely on the grounds it might confuse someone from the US. The world is a big place; we have to trust our readers to have some intelligence. Elemimele (talk) 07:35, 2 August 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 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dial-the-Truth Ministries[edit]

Dial-the-Truth Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are WP:PRIMARY or promotional in tone. No better sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Websites. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on nom's reason. If the reason is sources, consider that there are 3 secondary sources that are academic in nature (from reputable academic authors, such as David Gauntlett) and are, in fact, relatively neutral, primarily using this group as an example of a specific sub-culture. Also, the use of the primary sources here is WP:PRIMARY #3 - stating a fact about what they believe (which, I'd argue, sounds far more conspiratorial/fringe than promotional to me). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The first secondary source is a passing mention ("According to Terry Watkins, head of Dial-the-Truth Ministries [unrelated claim]"). The second secondary source, at best, provides one sentence of coverage on the subject. I can't access the third secondary source, but given the context it seems likely to be another passing mention and one source can't singlehandedly make an article notable anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pppery. Andrevan@ 02:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NORG because Barnet and Gauntlett both are passing mentions. I have found other mentions in books like The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America (2017) and in Contextualization in the context of mainstream 'rock' music listeners (2005), but these too are passing mentions. SWinxy (talk) 19:23, 4 August 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!} 17:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby C. Baker[edit]

Bobby C. Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability criteria WP:BLP, none of the references meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doctor doing his job. Appears to have gotten a 25 yr pin from the radiation society, not much beyond that. Only 4 hits in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am leaning towards Keep because it seems to me Baker meets Criterium 3 or WP:NPROF (membership of a fellowship). The award may also signal meeting criterium 7 - substantial impact outside academia in an academic capacity for founding the Maui Hawaii's only cancer treatment center in 1993. JamesKH76 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fellowship in such medical-related societies is a senior membership level that you apply for yourself, not the same as a Fellow of American academic societies. Baker is a practicing radiation oncologist and administrator not an academic, so NPROF does not apply. However there may be sources for meeting the GNG. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just added a section on a lawsuit brought against him for being involved in the death of a patient with a radiation overdose. This constitutes at least one independent published reliable source about him, and brings him over the threshold of notability, in my opinion. A loose necktie (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lawsuit was brought primarily against the Institute where Baker is the President and also against Baker and another doctor. The lawsuit was settled with the Institute paying $13.5m and each of the doctors settling for $1m each which was the maximum of their insurance policies. It wasn't a criminal offense but when we look at WP:PERP or any other policy/guideline/essay, there's nothing to suggest that being involved in a civil and settled and unremarkable lawsuit establishes notability. In addition, Baker only gets a mere mention (and a quote), there's nothing about that article which meets the criteria for establishing his notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient independent coverage, nowhere near SIGCOV territory atm. I would have be inclined to vote keep anyway had he founded the first cancer treatment center in Hawaii, but it seems he founded the first radiation treatment center for cancer, in Maui. Draken Bowser (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet any NPROF criteria, so instead would need to be assessed through GNG, which also appears to be failed through lack of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet GNG nor NPROF per above. Femke (talk) 16:41, 8 August 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 23:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SwissWatchExpo[edit]

SwissWatchExpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, the references are puff profiles which rely on interviews with the founder and/or company announcements. No "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. In addition and not unconnected, article creator has been indef blocked for advertising/promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional article. Sources used are a bit of a stretch ("where to buy the best watches" and the like.) The Spanish GQ article seems iffy as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Promotional article, fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't find any sources that would make me believe it should pass any notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 21:35, 3 August 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 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Cathedra (film)[edit]

Ex Cathedra (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Note - please also see AfD on Liam Andrew Wright - director of this film who also is up for discussion and Banter Media, company by the same.

This film has no relevant sources on my searches on Google or elsewhere and the two references show that this was pretty much a university project that was never released in cinemas? Reads like an advertisement. Fails GNG with non reliable independent sources and 0 coverage.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The film is obscure, and I couldn't find any coverage (it also lacks an Rotten Tomatoes page), there's another subject of the same name, but this 2009 film is non-notable. It has only 14 ratings on IMDB, and apparently there was an entry from the British Film Magazine, only it couldn't be opened; the only other ref is the company's non indepedent about page. Otherwise, this doesn't meet GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (film), I support deletion per nom, and the keep vote is unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and VickKiang + the sole source appears to be a personal blog (see its about page). QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the director of the film in question so my vote probably won't be counted but my arguments are listed above regardless. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172052/ - IMDB listing

https://www.amazon.com/Ex-Cathedra-Richard-Massara/dp/B09HJC8FCY - Amazon Video listing

The film was an indie film created between 2008-2009 in a world where many of the original sources are from websites that are no longer around or cached by WayBackMachine. Honestly, I believe Kadzi has it in for me for some reason. I understand there is a valid debate but the film has been around since 2009 and this page was made in 2010 - what is the rationale for deletion now given that it was deemed notable enough for IMDB (which had strict guidelines at least in 2009) and is available in the commercial market? 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. IMDb is, at best, a routine database. Inclusion there just requires that you give them some proof that the film, role, or person exists in some form or fashion. They're also not the best when it comes to verifying said proof, as we've had cases of people adding listings for fake shows, films, and even roles. My whole reason for mentioning that is just to explain why the site isn't seen as a sign of notability and can't even really be used to back up basic claims. At most it can be a jumping off point for further research. The Amazon listing is also considered to be routine, as generally speaking, almost anyone can upload films for purchase/streaming. I'm aware there's a bit more to it than that, but it's not a sign of notability. It just shows that it exists and can be viewed. Finally, as far as other sourcing goes, sourcing doesn't have to be online but it does have to be verifiable and in places Wikipedia would see as independent, reliable sourcing that goes into depth on the topic. Examples of this would be reviews in newspapers or websites such as DVD Talk, as well as articles written about the film. Awards can sometimes count towards notability, but would have to be from notable award granting institutions, as not all awards are major enough to give partial or total notability.

As far as notability guidelines go, they've gotten stricter over the years. To be honest, most guidelines only required proof of existence to pass notability guidelines. This quickly became unwieldy, as a lot of people began to use the site to promote stuff that was extremely non-notable. Think in terms of self-published books through iUniverse and YouTube movies shot on a cell phone by a couple of bored people in their backyard, stuff that hasn't gained any coverage at all. So the criteria got more selective in order to weed those out. It unfortunately also resulted in a lot of indie films failing notability guidelines as well. The guidelines are likely only going to become more selective as time goes by as well, as there just aren't enough editors to keep up with everything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not the case in 2009. There was a lot of hoops to jump through back then. There were reviews and commentary back in 2009 when the internet was based around blog sites. Many of which are no longer available and were not cached by WayBackMachine. This article has been around since 2010 but today, after I attempted to write a Wikipedia article related to crypto it is now being targeted for deletion? My respect for Wikipedia has taken a big hit today. I saw it as maintaining the digital history of the internet. I know this post won't help my case but it is true. The film was not shot on an iPhone and uploaded to YouTube. It was selected to a world renown film festival (which no longer has records from the time online) and the wiki article has been updated countless times by the community over the past 10 years but today it is now not notable enough and will be deleted? Ok. It is what it is. I know nothing I say will change that now. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have screenshots/clippings of the reviews and coverage? If you can show them, then we can look at them and see if they would be seen as reliable sources. The coverage doesn't have to be online, it just has to be independent of the film and cast/crew, in-depth, and in a place Wikipedia would see as reliable - even if it doesn't exist any longer. For example, DVD Verdict is no longer online as they went defunct in 2017, but reviews from their site would still be seen as a reliable source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Andrew Wright[edit]

Liam Andrew Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Note - this person is linked to Banter Media and Ex Cathedra (film) and is named on those two pages (which I will also AfD)

This page gives seemingly impressionable/notable feats however on a deeper trawl the majority of the accomplishments listed on this page are either unreferences or first hand sources. The majority of the references link to this persons twitter page, cryptoslate (to which he is affiliated), bantermedia (to which he is affiliated) or youtube - there are no reliable sources here; reference no6 appears to be a promotional news article.

The Ex Cathedra film linked to this person (to which he is director) has no sources that I have been able to find that show its notability and the only reference shows that it appears to be more of a university project than an actual released film. Fails GNG with non reliable independent sources and 0 coverage,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry but this page has been live since 2010 and now you feel it should be deleted after you declined the CryptoSlate article? Sorry but this feels like an attack on crypto from a reviewer who is failing to be neutral. You can watch Ex Cathedra on Amazon Video right now -https://www.amazon.com/Ex-Cathedra-Richard-Massara/dp/B09HJC8FCY - several sources are from 2009-2010 before WayBackMachine was as good as it is today and thus some references got lost in time.

  This was by no means a University project and had no association with any educational establishment. The film is listed on IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172052/ and has been since is launch at Santa Barbarra International Film festival in 2009. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the individual in question so my vote probably won't be counted but my arguments are listed above regardless. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - evidently self-promotion. Deb (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with all above, many refs but not much substantive coverage. Crypto position is neither here nor there. Oaktree b (talk) 18:27, 1 August 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!} 17:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trax Credit Union[edit]

Trax Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this meets WP:NCORP, at least based off what I was able to find. There's also only nine locations, so it might be hard to find sources because of that (which would again point towards to the direction of not meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines). It's possible I'm not looking in the right places, though. The article as-is reminds me about those ads you'll see on TV for a product or service "we won an award you've never heard of, ranked # whatever on this list, etc" kind of thing. But I've never lived anywhere near Florida so maybe these listed awards are more important than they sound and what I've been able to find. Clovermoss (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Clovermoss (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: FWIW, Trax is by far the smallest credit union listed in Category:Credit unions based in Florida. While size in itself is not a criteria for notability, I think that the smaller a credit union is, the less likely it is that significant coverage exists in reliable sources. - Donald Albury 14:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Search Comment. For roughly 86/87 years, (almost all of this organizations existence), it has been known as Railroad & Industrial Federal Credit Union. Searches using Trax will find only the most very recent references. Jacona (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jacona: Thanks for bringing this up, that's an important point. I should've brought this up in the nom because that's an important part of trying to find sources. The main reason I saw the article was because of the page move to the new title. I did try searching for sources for the other title, but didn't really find enough to pass WP:NCORP. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places though. Not every source is nessecarily online, especially for older companies like this. Clovermoss (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm using "Railroad & Industrial" FCU -Trax and Railroad & Industrial Federal Credit Union -Trax in Google to remove any news items discussing the name change. There's also the former website through Internet Archive here. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for those tips The Grid. I was using for the quotation marks for the old company name, but not the - to get rid of sources that are simply about the name change. I found this [8] but it's a press release. I looked through pretty much all the other results and they're pretty much directory-based. Are you seeing something I'm not or just giving search tips? I appreciate them, by the way. Clovermoss (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just giving search tips for potentially hoping for someone to find something. I couldn't really find anything. – The Grid (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chess at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games[edit]

Chess at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Draftify this unfinished article. To be fair it's hardly started, let alone unfinished. Disputed Draftification. This needs a great deal of work before it's ready to exist in main space 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as suggested; no point in having an incomplete article, an empty table, with no information, in main-space, but presumably whoever wrote it intends to fill in the table etc. Elemimele (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and make sure it stays draftified. It has already been moved back to mainspace twice, even when I told the creator not to move it until it was properly sourced and developed [9]. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It has now been populated, but without substantive independent referencing. This remains incomplete, unacceptably so 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:33, 6 August 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 Nomination Withdrawn. I nominated it, and I'm withdrawing my nomination. We'll talk about the article's name on the talkpage because the name does not seem to cover the subject of the article. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good things come together[edit]

All good things come together (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article does not cite any source, and a WP:BEFORE shows nothing tangible. I proposed for deletion, but it was decline. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was declined because I did a BEFORE and found some relevant sources. See my comments at Talk:All good things come together#Removal of proposed deletion. The nominator has chosen not to respond to that either on the talk page or in his nomination. This is the laziest AFD I have seen all week – going straight to a deletion without analysing potential sources or taking part in a discussion.
  As I said on the talk page, this was not just a throw away expression. Rather, it is the title (badly translated) of a major work by the philosopher in question. This work is discussed in numerous reliable sources; just one more in addition to those already on the talk page is Hock-Tong Cheu, Chinese Beliefs and Practices in Southeast Asia [10]. SpinningSpark 13:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Spinningspark, I'd be lying if I say I saw your comments on the articles talk page, I wouldn't have nominated. I'm withdrawing the nomination and closing. Let's talk about the name on the talk page. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:27, 2 August 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) Femke (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission sui juris of I-li[edit]

Mission sui juris of I-li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reason: Does not have any sources AAAAA143222 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 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 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page lists sources, including Joseph de Moidrey, La hiérarchie catholique en Chine, en Corée et au Japon (1307–1914). The page has had these sources since @Arcarius added them in 2017.--Jahaza (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No good reason for deletion. Had sources when it was nominated, so the claim is patently false. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1: no valid rationale for deletion has been given. BilletsMauves^€500 18:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has reliable sources book coverage as mentioned above, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 8 August 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. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fwrd Axis News[edit]

Fwrd Axis News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence found of any notability for this site. Sources are either affiliated with the site and their partners, or not about the site. No better sources found with an online search. Fram (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of any significant coverage from reliable sources. —Natalie RicciNatalie 09:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a dearth of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS, I don't see any way this can meet WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable at this time because no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The publisher is not notable either. gidonb (talk) 20:25, 7 August 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Simon (American football)[edit]

Jim Simon (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of why the subject is notable. Only one citation is in the article, and it gives no explanation for what makes Brown unique or noteworthy. Nightscream (talk) 15:19, 1 August 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 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, they've played in 82 NFL games, they pass WP:NGRIDIRON Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NGRIDIRON requires"multiple published non-trivial" sources. The article does not have this. Nightscream (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote when you're the nominator. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on [11][12][13]. Worth noting that although NGRIDIRON does not exist any more as a separate guideline, NFL players with as much experience as Simon are virtually always notable. Hatman31 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These nominations are getting ridiculous. Simon played EIGHTY-TWO games in the NFL and was a starter for multiple seasons. And, like 99% of other NFL players, Simon easily meets GNG, see here, here, here, here, and here. They even made football cards of him! BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Played 80 NFL games. Undoubtedly notable due to having played several seasons in the NFL. Poor nomination rationale and should have sought better sources, not deletion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the above. The fact that the nominator couldn't even get th name right is one of many indications that WP:BEFORE was not followed. If we all weren't so distracted with nominations like this we might actually be able to improve the encyclopedia. StAnselm (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC, per the sources found by Hatman31 and BeanieFan11. Total failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:22, 2 August 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. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Ali[edit]

Ye Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability isn't transferable, doesn't matter who he's performed with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no indication of notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Clague[edit]

Rupert Clague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet notability criteria, written like a CV with links that do not meet Wikipedia criteria Trumplives46 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This nomination comes from an SPA, as such we need to treat it with caution but that doesn't mean that we automatically reject it. Let's see what we find... First up, the article has a conversational unencyclopaedic tone. That's never a good sign but it is fixable if there is notability. At least the Copyvio detector doesn't turn up any plagiarism. "Clague has worked on documentaries all over the world..." is followed by links to a lot of notable programmes and documentaries but they don't link back. What was his actual involvement? It wasn't nothing but most of the time it wasn't pivotal either. Then we get on to documentaries that he actually directed. That's better. Or is it? None of those seem to have articles. So what have we got? IMDB offers a good way to look at it. He produced some episodes of TV shows. He directed some stuff but it is mostly non-notable shorts and segments. ("Pawsea" is only 4 mins long.) There are a couple of award nominations but they don't seem to confer notability. The fundamental problem is that the article tries to inherit notability from his involvement with more notable people and projects but that's not how notability works. The only really good independent reference is the Ham & High. It is RS and it is actually about Clague. Is it good enough though? Not really. It's a local paper writing about a local person. It would be fine alongside other good sources but it can't take the weight of the article alone. The CBC article helps a little but only a little as he is not the main focus. The IOM Today piece is about him but only about him trying to crowdfund. The Battle of Ideas Festival reference is not great. It seems to be some sort of "free speech festival" (yawn). That said, I don't see any reason to doubt its basic biographical details about their speakers although clearly it is trying to big them up as much as it can. It is probably OK for verification but confers no notability. So, last gasp, maybe the article is just poorly written? Maybe there is more RS out there? Fortunately his name is very distinctive and it is easy to Google. Unfortunately it doesn't turn up much. There is this interview and that's about it. I came here expecting this to be a speedy keep and its actually a weak delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs)
• Delete Agree with above explanation, I can't find much for sourcing. Same ones that turn up for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May not be important, however Trumplives76, when listing Rupert Clague for deletion, deleted much of the page. This has not happened in the current revision of the page, as I write this. This caused multiple reverts by myself and other editors, so may have problems under 3RR. JML1148 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 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. Self-admitted paid promotion (the article and its sources, apparently). Sandstein 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bole festival[edit]

Bole festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject article fails WP:GNG because they seems like a promotional press about the event coming up to entertain and also lack significant coverage. Article also seems fishy looking like a paid job from the way it was written . Subject article also fails WP:EVENTCRIT in terms of No.1 . Articles is a Too soon and should be delete because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Gabriel^t@lk 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, and Events. Gabriel^t@lk 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — according to the policy, before nominating an article for deletion, you are required to make a WP:BEFORE. I have done so and I have found multiple sources supporting proving the notability of this event.
• Editor (21 July 2019). "Bole Festival set for August 3". The Guardian. ((cite news)): |last= has generic name (help)
• Sesan (19 July 2019). "Port Harcourt hosts boli festival". The Punch.
• "Bole Festival: The Biggest Food Festival From The Heart Of The South". Vanguard. 10 July 2019.

I could go on and on and on. For now, we have WP:THREE. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 11:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Thank You Reading Beans for saving my article. Actually I’m a journalist and close friend to the Founder of Bole festival. We actually had a promised from our co-partner “CIOUSNET” that our Wikipedia has been verified and can never be deleted because we paid him for the service and news content which he said to be eligible. We are trying to reach “CIOUSNET” but his not picking please how do we email you. We have an upcoming show and we need the Wikipedia to be professionally look good.--Bolejournalist (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bolejournalist, that is to say, the page was created by a paid user. Please see ((UPE)) and ((COI)). If this page is to survive (which I now doubt), request for edits on the talk page of the article here. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 09:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely against Wikipedia policy to pay someone to make a page, unless they disclose their association, in which case they cannot just post the page, they need to submit it for admin review via WP:AFC. CIOUSNET is in violations of Wikipedia policy. Zeddedm (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Bolejournalist Wikipedia is not a site for promotion or where editors are being paid to help brand a particular brand or event. Also why then pay for press articles if your events are notable.--Gabriel^t@lk 09:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - all articles appear to be PR and was admitted by Bolejournalist above that a paid editor was hired who did PR.Zeddedm (talk) 06:20, 6 August 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 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexico (programming language)[edit]

Lexico (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find a single secondary source about the programming language, and it appears obscure to professionals in the field - I was hoping to find a mention at [14] but did not, ending up referring to a programming language called Latino instead. The language gets a mention at a list of programming languages [15] but no significant coverage.

Note recent failed prod here and related discussion here and here. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has been here for more than 10 years with no serious improvement. Unless this deletion discussion leads to improvement, it should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a good deletion rationale. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If I had said "Unless this deletion discussion leads to the finding of secondary sources, it should be deleted" would that have been OK?" That is the improvement I was referring to. --Bduke (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's fine. Thanks for clarifying. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found a link here and it looks like the language has not been updated for over a decade. I think we can consider it defunct. Also note that searching today is difficult because the word "lexico" is used for an online dictionary, and that is what floods the search. Lamona (talk) 16:19, 7 August 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. Already deleted by Bbb23 under CSD WP:G5 SpinningSpark 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firoz chaudhary[edit]

Firoz chaudhary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this nomination has repeatedly been declined at AfC and does not appear to meet either general notability or notability for musicians. The article creator had previously posted it at Firoz Chaudhary (Singer), then moved that page to draftspace under a different name after it went to AfD and posted this version with a different capitalization of the name. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... and do whatever is necessary to prevent re-creation in either Mainspace or Draft. Multiple dogged attempts to get this singer onto Wikipedia with shifty article titles indicates a promotional effort, or at least an overzealous fan. As for the singer himself, it might simply be WP:TOOSOON because he is just getting started. He may have a couple of industry awards but his victories did not receive reliable media notice, and otherwise he is only visible in shameless puff pieces (e.g. [16]) and basic industry directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the nominator stated and I do agree with Doomsdayer520. Not enouth verifialbe reliable sources. --Bigneeerman (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with above. No notable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt, non-notable and block evasion, see Firoz Chaudhary, User talk:Firoz Chaudhary, and User talk:Sana543. Storchy (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non notable singer. I can't find any sources which makes him/her notable. Poppified ^talk 17:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the Yorkpedia 'article' is clearly a press release and there is nothing else available other than the usual self-published garbage. Clear WP:NMUSICIAN fail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - No better sourcing found. Article creator has moved the article back to draftspace, just as they did when Firoz Chaudhary (Singer) was similarly nominated. With Firoz Chaudhary already being salted, it's time to take stronger measures against the shenanigans. --Finngall ^talk 13:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: Delete and spread a liberal helping of salt over every title that this rubbish has been created at. Just another non-notable musician desperately trying to create a new type of 'social media profile', by any means necessary. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]