< February 10	February 12 >

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lycos Video Production[edit]

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information in reliable sources, so WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. Most of this article is about the business school the founders went to and looks like an attempt at notability by association. From what I can tell, the company appears to be defunct, and while notability is not temporary, it seems like this company never was. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the cited sources either are dead links or don't mention this company. This article seems to be more promotional of the business school that helped the company that get started than informational about the company itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not reliable and very old and the article is more promotional then informational.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 07:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. -Imcdc (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also did a search of Newspapers.com and found nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt's clear that it fails WP:NCORP--Art&football (talk) 23:05, 17 February 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 01:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fraternity[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found a review at TV Guide [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find anything so far, the only reason I'm not making an official judgement is because I didn't see the TV Guide review when I searched - so far it looks like a lot of the coverage for this, if it exists, will be buried pretty deep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one review in TV guide is not enough to show something is notable, and the sources we have here now are clearly not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have searched a few local Canadian sources and have found nothing of note on this film. Unfortunately there is not enough here to push it over the threshold for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold F. Reichenthal[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Local community leader whose activities were chronicled ("Insurance Man Addresses Dentists", "Boght Hills PTA Names Chairmen", "Farewell Party Given For HVTI Instructor", "Reichenthal Heads Merged Area TB Unit", etc.), but for whom no secondary sources (i.e. those that count towards SIGCOV) appear to exist that give more than a passing mention of him. Star Garnet (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local coverage that basically exists to fill out the size of the newspaper is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking WP:SIGCOV and really any coverage outside of his immediate hometown. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 18 February 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 23:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Marin[edit]

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

No notable sources. All sources are self-published blogs (See: all Patheos, even the CNN link is to a self-reported CNN iReport from someone affiliated with the Marin Foundation). No major media coverage can be found for Andrew Marin, even references to his foundation are usually secondary references as counterprotestors from members of his own organization. The NYT reference is simply Dan Savage personally insulting Andrew Marin, and that's the closest to real serious coverage that can be found for this person. Photonsoup (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletean overly promotional article with no actual sign of meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for shortage of notability, significant coverage, reliable sources. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:11, 18 February 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 consensus, article improvement. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Argentin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; none is provided in the article and none was discovered in a WP:BEFORE search, which included a search of Gallica.

There is a minor description of him in his Olympedia entry, but it doesn't appear to constitute significant coverage, being limited to a summary of his competition history.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources that have been identified are truly comprehensive databases of all Olympians. We have ruled that only medalists are default notable for participation in the Olympics, so unless we can find sources that would constitute passing GNG this article needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – I've expanded the article using sources from Google. There is still room for further expansion. Important to note that Argentin wasn't just a one-time Olympian who finished in 4th place, he was the national champion in his sport. For that reason, I believe he comfortably passes notability guidelines. I will continue to look for sources, but I imagine he will get several expansive write-ups upon his death, which will easily bulk up his article beyond its current state. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a WP:BEFORE-fail. Schwede 66 20:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Schwede66: I've reviewed the sources, and none of them constitute significant coverage. The independent coverage in Alpes and Midi of Argentin consists of a single paragraph of statistical information Raymond Argentin was born in 1924 in Champigny/Marne. In 1948, at the age of 24, he was selected to compete in the London Games in canoe kayak 1 place over 10,000 m. Entered the French team that year he remained there until 1950. In 48 he won his 1st French Championship, which he won 3 times, in 1,000 m, in 1949, he won the 1,000 and 10,000 m. This athlete progressed quickly because he did not discover single-seater canoeing until 1942, while the coverage in le Courrier du Pay de Retz is just An association that constitutes the living memory of the discipline, whose oldest member is Raymond Argentin, who made 4e at the London Olympics in 1948, and the most recent Tony Estanguet. Sports Reference and Olympedia are databases, while "List of Oldest Living Olympians" appears to both be an unreliable source and its coverage of him, being a list entry, is not significant. Finally, "The 1948 Olympics: How London Rescued the Games" consists of a single line where Argentin's result in the Canadian singles 10,000 metres is listed, which is again not significant. BilledMammal (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accomplishments (national championship victories and international tournaments) suggest that there would be sufficient contemporary reports on this individual if we had access to French sources of the period. While notability is not based on theoretical sources, those that have been provided thus far should be sufficient to keep the article. Canadian Paul 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Canadian Paul (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources, which appears to be what you are arguing. BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – rather conveniently, you've chosen to ignore the fact, pointed out by CP and myself, that this individual wasn't just a 4th place Olympian, but indeed a national champion in their respective sport, rendering your WP:NOLYMPICS argument redundant... --Jkaharper (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They might have been a national champion, but that doesn't establish notability or even the presumption of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Jkaharper and Canadian Paul. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the source assessment above. A semi-interview in a local magazine is not particularly compelling as SIGCOV, and we would need multiple such sources anyway. I'd also note that primary sources should only be used to support uncontroversial facts, so material from an interview, unless covered elsewhere, should be extremely limited in a biography as it has not been demonstrated to be DUE and encyclopedic. The "oldest living Olympians" ref is a statistical database, and absent sources discussing it, his "being real old" is also not DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite not medaliing in the Olympics, Argentin did compete in the Olympics. Thanks to contributor Jkaharper for finding out more information and expanding it on the French canoeist. Chris (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:V. Article has been expanded significantly since the deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note however that it hasn't been expanded since I last reviewed the sources available and quoted all the independent coverage there was of this individual, with the exception of statistics. BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some numerical traction in favour of keeping the article, but the charge that the subject does not meet GNG has not yet been refuted convincingly. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that it has been expanded with more sources and information. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 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. ✗plicit 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McClure[edit]

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

Non-notable person, doesn't meet WP:GNG. I don't think there are guidelines for clergy, but I can't make WP:SCHOLAR fit -- no publications, no national or notable appointments, no significant contributions to the art. Mikeblas (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He was the Archdeacon of Bristol, I'm pretty sure that is notable enough for an article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does that position convey notability? Are references available for it, anyway? The reference in this article is to Facebook, and I don't have an account. The reference in Archdeacon of Bristol is to an archived copy of a local newspaper's website, which incidentally mentions him during coverage of a jubilee celebration in the town. Searching the Disocese website for "McClure" gets no hits at all. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Lately we seem to have had doubts as to whether archdeacons are notable per se. This is the only basis on which I can see that he would be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Since he has an entry in UK Who's Who Piecesofuk (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I tried. Am I looking in the wrong place? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes sorry I should have posted a link, don't know why that search doesn't work, the link is https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U25394 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piecesofuk. St Anselm (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though it would be nice to see the article improved. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:16, 18 February 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. NeverTry4Me has now been indeffed... Sandstein 17:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Lahiri[edit]

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

Seeking a redirect to Precious (group). Not seeing any coverage outside of her brief notability with the group per WP:BANDMEMBER. Most acting roles are insignificant. BriefEdits (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as some reputed sources found about her nobility. Certainly passes WP:GNG. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 22:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have taken a look at the new sources added since I have nominated this article. And it seems like the Evening Standard source is the only independent coverage that is specifically about her and isn't an interview. The Manchester Evening News is a passing mention (and mostly related to Barry's) and the Huffington Post interview gives pretty shallow depth of information. It still seems like a stretch to me but I guess I can be convinced otherwise. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC

@BriefEdits:as you see ~~see~~ notebeable ~~notebla~~ citation. -NeverTry4Me - TT page 11:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:02, 11 February 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. There hasn't been any substantial source analysis, and the first opinion is by a now indeffed user. Sandstein 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia C2 (2020)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are Nokia and a database of phone specifications Slywriter (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as a simple click on "Google Search" and "Google News" gives SIGCOV. The article is not so great. It should be expanded. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 23:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spec page after spec page disguised as a review. The writers aren't even putting effort into the so called SIGCOV. So we take no effort webpages and turn them into no effort wikipedia pages to immortalize a device that will be in existence for a year.Slywriter (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arunudoy. Additional notices may be placed on the article for improvement, but deletion does not seem to be in line with wikipedia policy. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources such as this one establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to discuss RS/GNG complaint sources, not google searches
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Andrews University#Public art. Where it has been merged to. Sandstein 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corten Steel Sculpture[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. No sources pop up in either Google, Scholar, or Google News. References in article suggest it is of local interest but not notable enough for WP. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note from article creator: Just redirect/merge to Andrews University, then. No need for AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that redirect, as corten steel sculpture could mean any sculpture made of this material. Weathering_steel#Uses might be a better redirect, if the consensus is this should be kept as a redirect, but since Corten steel already redirects to that page I feel the additional redirect a bit unnecessary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and merged the text to Andrews_University#Public_art. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have waited for there to be more discussion on where to redirect, Another Believer. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever! Feel free to revert. I'm just trying to make less work for others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert, hope my original message didn't sound passive aggressive or anything :) It's just that I nominated the article about 1h30 ago so it felt a bit early. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted. This shouldn't be done while an AfD is underway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, and the other two at Andrews. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @A. C. Santacruz:this article was already merged to Andrews University on January 28 by User:Another Believer. Catfurball (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that was after the AfD had been started. Articles shouldn't be moved, merged or whatever during an AfD discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion about this subject at ANI right now and from that it seems like no one really cares if articles are merged or whatever during AfDs. Except maybe in extremely rare cases where it's clearly being done to subvert the process. Which I don't think was the case here. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, only sources in article is from the university, have been unable to find any sources that discuss/review or any awards/prizes given for this sculpture. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to re-merge this to Andrews University, but @A. C. Santacruz:'s concerns about Corten steel going one place and this another is valid. Let's see if a week gives resolution to that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; lack of coverage.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Disambiguate Since the name of the sculpture is literally "Corten Steel Sculpture" I suggest we put in a disambiguation page, with links to both Weathering_steel#Uses and Andrews_University#Public_art, and merge the content of Corten Steel Sculpture into Andrews_University#Public_art. EVhotrodder (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure disambiguation would be the best way to go about it, EVhotrodder, based on just how low the page views for this article are. I'd argue this is one of those cases where there is no risk that average readers will mean anything but Weathering steel#Uses when searching for Corten Steel sculpture so disambiguating might be unnecessary (per Deciding to disambiguate guideline: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:45, 17 February 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Game Prattana[edit]

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

The available sources there is YouTube. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 20:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Thai mainstream TV prime-time soaps like this one routinely generate extensive coverage in entertainment news, like the Thairath Online article also cited in the article (though they don't always comprise original reporting). I'd also like to point out the guidance under #C2 at WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." AfDing the article in its second edit, 20 minutes after creation, seems a bit hasty. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Game of Thrones which is a good article cited several Youtube videos. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment broadcast of this TV series has already started. Plenty of coverage from Google news search [2] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, seeing as no valid rationale for deletion has been forthcoming. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The current article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Youtube is one thing, but the article has several references to Facebook and Instagram as well. This is simply not good enough. Draftifying will give ample time to sort this out, since the topic seems like it may have notability. Geschichte (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think draftification encapsules all the prior comments/wishes from other discussion participants. Geschichte (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally do not think draftifying is a good solution. An article will see more chance of improvement in Mainspace, and should remain there unless there are major policy concerns. The Facebook references are to a page reporting on TV ratings. Thai organizations often use Facebook pages as a web host, so citing them should not be a problem in itself as long the source is reputable (though I have not been able to confirm this for the specific case). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to see if GNG compliant sourcing can be identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTVLOCAL. The series has been broadcasted in the region. Htanaungg (talk) 08:18, 12 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Democratic Party (United Kingdom)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties and certainly not of unnotable "here today, gone tomorrow" outfits like this. No notable results, no notable personality, no impact before, during, or after the one byelection fought. Not notable by any Wikipedia guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the nominator is right. UK politics produces all sorts of tiny parties that disappear in a flash. Seventy one people cared enough about this party to vote for it in the only by-election it fought. There are people whose round-robin letters at Christmas have greater circulation than that. The only source that looks superficially good (Guardian) is actually an interview with the party's one and only candidate. No offence intended to the party's undeniably worthy aims and efforts, but they never made it big enough to become of encyclopaedic interest. Otherwise, according to the article, a party has recently been created with the same name, but until it does something, this new contribution to the article's function is WP:TOOSOON. In any case, I can't find any record of this new party existing. Elemimele (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nominator. non-notable minor political party. Eopsid (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party has been around for 5 years, which is quite a long time and it has had an article written about it in The Guardian ([3]). GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fact check The party deregistered in 2017 so has not been around for five years. See proof here - http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP1934 doktorb _words^deeds 08:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and that's precisely the Guardian article to which I referred: it is an interview for the Northern part of the Guardian, which was obliged to carry out interviews with every candidate no matter now minor, in order not to show political bias. You can see this by the fact that it contains links to all the remaining interviews in the series. Note, too, that the staff author has not written a single word about the party or its candidate, instead adding a couple of general sentences on Manchester's lack of political engagement, and then allowing the candidate to speak in his own words. It's a completely useless citation for establishing notability. Elemimele (talk) 13:28, 12 February 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 Move. Well hybrid of move and delete. It does not belong in mainspace and consensus reflects that, but there is viability and usefullness of this for the project. Content will be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Malawi Index Star Mississippi 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Malawi-related articles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD agreed to move this index to WikiProject space at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles, but it was moved back in December 2013, in ignorance of consensus, by a request at WP:RMTR. With a large number of redlinks and over 13000 pages in the Category:Malawi tree, this is useless for navigation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Our tree of categories/subcategories is far superior for topics this broad. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi (without leaving behind a redirect). The large number of redlinks are a signal that this isn't one of your usual country indexes. As pointed out on the talk page and in the previous AfD, the bulk of the list has been generated from the entries in the Historical Dictionary of Malawi, and its main point is to serve as a guide to which articles are yet to be created (this is a valid list to have in projectspace). It's not helpful for readers as it contains less than half, possibly even less than a quarter, of all currently existing Malawi-related articles (hence the need to keep it out of mainspace). – Uanfala (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand what benefit Wikipedia users get out of this list. We already have a much better organizational system consisting of the categories and subcategories within Category:Malawi. As a second choice, move per Uanfala. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per Uanfala. This kind of list is kept by all kinds of wikiprojects and looks like it would actually be helpful even for editors who aren't hugely familiar with Malawi if the entries are from the Historical Dictionary - a good hint about what topics are probably notable. Certainly not articlespace-useful though. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. -Imcdc (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Malawi to appropriate pages.Gusfriend (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Uanfala. My intent in creating this was simply to track Wikipedia coverage vs a published index, essentially wikiproject material, but years before the project existed. How do we keep people from moving it out of project space? Do the page top notices need to be larger and redder or something? Stan (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stick a wikiproject banner on top of it and a big line saying "This is a list of potential article titles maintained by WP Malawi based on the Historical Dictionary of Malawi" or something on it? -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary per nom. desmay (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blue Heelers. per consensus, lack of independent notability, shortage of article content. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Jones (Blue Heelers)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT, according to prodder Avilich (talk · contribs). Changes made by the deprodder, Jlmtw91 (talk · contribs), did not address these concerns, and the new refs are primarily IMDb entries about episodes of Blue Heelers. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the show. Pure plot summary, not a shred of evidence of real-world notability, fails GNG. Typical WP:FANCRUFT, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problems persist, no evidence that the topic meets GNG. Avilich (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the show; I see no evidence that the topic of the article meets GNG either. The WP:NOTPLOT concerns seem equally valid to me. Pilaz (talk) 18:34, 12 February 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. ✗plicit 01:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Ferariu[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL. Generated a couple of human interest stories when she attended Drexel University with her sister but her college career was mediocre and I've not found anything recent that meets WP:SIGCOV. The article claims that she now plays in Romania with CSU Brașov although I found no database confirming this (might be a COVID-19-related problem though). In any case, players in the Liga Națională (women's basketball) are rarely notable. Pichpich (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack adequate sources of Significant coverage to the level required by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with sources now in the article. With these sources from the American Philadelphia Inquirer and the Romanians Monitorul Expres, ProSport and B1 TV, Ana has more significant coverage than the recently kept Adam Filipczak. Alvaldi (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the recently added sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the sources now there the GNG is satisfied. Moonraker (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per the sources listed above by Alvaldi. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Tanzania-related articles[edit]

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably this AFD. The index in question is a huge block of text unusable to a human reader. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007. Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have specific rules to cite for this, but I find this list a good gathering of articles that one would not find simply by searching on Tanzania. It is much more complete than a search on Category:Tanzania. If this kind of list is to be deprecated would it be replicated by adding the Category:Tanzania to all of those articles? If so, then I could see that as an eventual solution. Lamona (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be sympathetic to this argument if it were anything more useful than an alphabetical list, but I'm not sure there's anything at all useful about it for readers in this state? What kind of use case do you see here? -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link in the article for Tanzania to this list, so from the article you are sent to a list of all of the related articles, most of which are not retrieved in an obvious way with a search on Tanzania. I agree that using the category may be more correct, but I have to say that it's not obvious how to search on categories. So if one comes to WP looking for all of the articles on Tanzania, the link from the base article is the only way at the moment. I do wish that there was a category search box on the home page. Am I missing something? Lamona (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on previous AFDs. Outline of Tanzania isn't very long, but having organization is better than an indiscriminate alphabetical list if someone wants to merge. Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanzania if people have a use for this, but there's also the WP 1.0 tool for a comprehensive list for the above concerns, and the category structure works fine without needing all pages to be in the parent category too. Reywas92^Talk 21:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand what benefit Wikipedia users get out of this list. We already have a much better organizational system consisting of the categories and subcategories within Category:Tanzania. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. -Imcdc (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Tanzania to appropriate pages.Gusfriend (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gusfriend Can you give a link to the tool? Does it take special permission? Thanks. Lamona (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be done using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser by someone who has been given access to it. There is also at least one tool that makes it easier to edit categories called HotCat Wikipedia:HotCat. Gusfriend (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State Park (film)[edit]

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films aren't all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist: we require concrete evidence of notability, such as significant film awards or evidence of media attention from established film critics in real media. But the only sources here are its directory entries at Turner Classic Movies and Rotten Tomatoes (with the latter not indexing any critical reviews that could be imported as proper sourcing) and a review on an unreliable and non-notability-making WordPress blog, and even after having searched both ProQuest and Newspapers.com I can't find anything better. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any actual media coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no indication that this film received a significant commercial release nor that it was reviewed by any major critics, or that it is otherwise notable under WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have the level of coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 17 February 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 23:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANNA![edit]

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

non-notable artist. Possibly WP:TOOSOON CUPIDICAE💕 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication that this artist meets WP notability criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. She is not regarded as an important figure in street art, nor has she been the subject of a book or film, nor has her work been included in significant exhibitions or collections of notable galleries or museums. I agree with the nom that this may be a case of TOOSOON: perhaps in a few more years there will be enough coverage to support an article. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Her art was showcased on The Houston Bowery Wall, a highly important exhibition within the world of graffiti art that has displayed the work of artists such as Banksy, Tats Cru, Kenny Scharf, and Tomokazu Matsuyama. She sounds pretty damn notable to me. Jaqoc (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't qualify for a speedy keep and being in one exhibition does not make her notable, especially given the total lack of coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically it doesn't qualify for any of these: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. CUPIDICAE💕 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

being in one exhibition does not make her notable and (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition

That sounds contradictory.

(c) won significant critical attention

Her art attracted the attention of the Bowery Boogie, so she is clearly of interest to street artists in the Lower East Side area, as well as this street art source that discusses the history of The Houston Bowery Wall which is significant to street artists. This has attracted the attention of journalists who wanted to interview her. She is clearly notable.

(d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

She has been exhibited at various galleries including 17 Frost Gallery and she even has her own television show that airs locally in Manhattan.

{a} become a significant monument

The Houston Bowery Wall is a significant monument to street artists in the Lower East Side, so her art on the wall became a significant monument as soon as it was discussed by relevant sources.Jaqoc (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched online and at the Wikipedia Library, and found no additional sources. It does not appear she was showcased on The Houston Bowery Wall as a featured artist. A blog provides a history of the wall, and when discussing another work, only states: "In the end this new work still held two months before being covered with the mysterious name of Anna in January 2018." About the same work, the Bowery Boogie states: "Someone named “Anna” rolled those letters across the entirety of the surface in white paint." This is not significant critical attention, and it does not appear to be considered by the sources to be a substantial part of a significant exhibition. There is also an interview with JetSet Times ("A Catalog of Cool Places") where she provides commentary about her career, and there is a brief mention in Brooklyn Street Art: "Background by Anna is a toy". Based on the available sources, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC/WP:ARTIST/WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and when discussing another work, only states: "In the end this new work still held two months before being covered with the mysterious name of Anna in January 2018." About the same work, the Bowery Boogie states: "Someone named “Anna” rolled those letters across the entirety of the surface in white paint."

She created a new work of art by using the typical artistic technique in graffiti known as topping, becoming a featured artist.

This is not significant critical attention, and it does not appear to be considered by the sources to be a substantial part of a significant exhibition.

Why not? If it wasn't a substantial part of a significant exhibition, they wouldn't be discussing it and taking pictures of it. Given the unique nature of graffiti compared to other forms of art, these sources clearly demonstrate critical attention towards a substantial part of a significant exhibition. Jaqoc (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because a subject-specific notability guideline such as WP:ARTIST does not operate differently than the general notability guideline, and sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. A WP:SECONDARY source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The blog and Bowery Boogie mention, but do not add commentary or even identify her as the artist, so this is not significant critical attention, and does not objectively support a claim that her work was a substantial part of a significant exhibition. Beccaynr (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed secondary analysis of her, as discussed below. The blog describes her work as "mysterious" and the Bowery Boogie describes her work as bombing, so this is indeed critical commentary that attracted the attention of the relevant community. And a reliable secondary source discusses her work as being a substantial part of a significant exhibition, as discussed below. Jaqoc (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are generally unacceptable as a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED, so even if the phrase "the mysterious name of Anna" can be interpreted as a comment on her art, it does not help support her notability. Also, a six-sentence report by a hyperlocal website using a term of art to describe what "Someone named “Anna”" did is attention, but it is not analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Beccaynr (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Pretty much mirrors the rationale of Praxidicae, WP:NOTJUSTYET, for now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely not WP:TOOSOON for an artist who passes WP:ARTIST with the unique and incomparable art form of graffiti. Jaqoc (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ANNA! had me at The Houston Bowery Wall and per Jaqoc's spiri'ed defense. A weekly television show gives credible weight to the page.Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A weekly cable show that can't be verified is not what makes anyone notable. There is no evidence she or the show are notable - more specifically it's not on network TV which is usually the standard for show notability. Further, aside from the lack of verifiability of the TV show, if it does exist, it would be the equivalent of a weekly YouTube video, AKA meaningless. Anyone can pay to be OTA. CUPIDICAE💕 19:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence she or the show are notable

Being discussed in a biography sounds notable.

more specifically it's not on network TV which is usually the standard for show notability

Well no one is making an article about her show.

Further, aside from the lack of verifiability of the TV show

It was discussed in a reliable secondary source, so it is verifiable. Jaqoc (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Jetset interview states that she wasn't "exhibited", "commissionned" or "curated" on the The Houston Bowery Wall, she simply tagged it - painted her name on top of Lakawean's mural that was commissioned/curated/being exhibited: I also tagged the famous Bowery Wall in broad daylight, which was super fun. Originally it was a mural that said “Lift You Higher” and I thought that it was lame so I wrote my name super big all over the mural. I think that got my name out there a lot more. More people respected me for being so ballsy. Every street artist wants to tag that wall and I just did it. It was only up for a few days but it was awesome. Let's look at the quality of the sources: 1) is a blog that simply mentions in a photo caption that her work can be seen in the background. 2) the Jetset interview is a primary source with no editorial content. 3) is a user-submitted profile. 4) is the exact same text from the interview mentioned above in BTW, the same publication too. 5) has one sentence that mentions her tag. 6) one sentence mention about the tagging. 7) is some photographer's blog with zero editorial content. None of the sources are in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of these contribute to notability per our guidelines for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Jetset interview states that she wasn't "exhibited", "commissionned" or "curated" on the The Houston Bowery Wall, she simply tagged it - painted her name on top of Lakawean's mural that was commissioned/curated/being exhibited

And her work became an attraction that became the subject of discussion by reliable sources, so it was being exhibited in the context of graffiti.

2) the Jetset interview is a primary source with no editorial content

That also contains secondary analysis from the editor such as "Anna, a graffiti artist from Brooklyn, has been in the game since 2016, tagging her infamous “ANNA!” throughout various locations in NYC".

3) is a user-submitted profile.

Her biography on Artnet is not a user-submitted profile. Artnet publishes biographies of artists such as David Hamilton, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Yayoi Kusama, Charles Angrand, Alfredo Jaar, and Theaster Gates, each who have their own articles on Wikipedia. They don't publish biographies of just any random person, you clearly have to be significant in order to be featured on Artnet. Many Wikipedia articles such as Richard Bober, Jean Miotte, Liss Eriksson, Matt Paweski, Hannah Greely, Celeste Dupuy-Spencer, Jan Hals, Rosson Crow, Anne Packard Carola Baer-von Mathes, Henry Faulkner, Nate Lowman, Kika Karadi, Lynne Woods Turner, Mia Florentine Weiss, Nina Pandolfo, Emily Prince, Pinar Yolaçan, Samira Alikhanzadeh, Shara Hughes and Cornelis Rol use Artnet as a biographical source. Her biography on Artnet is a reliable independent secondary source that clearly demonstrates notability. And this reliable independent secondary source describes her art on The Houston Bowery Wall as being part of an exhibition.

4) is the exact same text from the interview mentioned above in BTW, the same publication too.

This is a source that isn't an interview, and it provides further secondary material such as "She showcases her adventure in subway systems and the day that she tagged the infamous Houston Bowery Wall."

5) has one sentence that mentions her tag.

Very significant mention in a source that discusses the history of the wall

6) one sentence mention about the tagging.

The entire article is about her tagging. It was clearly significant enough for them to discuss it.

7) is some photographer's blog with zero editorial content.

That provides further evidence and notability of the tagging

None of the sources are in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of these contribute to notability per our guidelines for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST.

The sources are clearly independent of her and provide significant coverage of her life and career. Jaqoc (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaqoc, it is understandable that you want to retain the article, however I think you are misunderstanding our notability guidelines. The Houston Bowery Wall is notable, but it does not make her notable because she tagged it with her name, notability is not inherited. Just because ArtNet has profiles of tens of thousands of artists who are actually notable such as Jean-Michel Basquiat, does not mean their notability rubs off on her by association. There is precisely zero in-depth significant coverage - WP:SIGCOV. What would constitute sigcov would be feature articles and reviews in notable magazines like Art in America, ARTFORUM, ArtNews; a chapter in a book on graffiti art or a monograph on her work, articles or essays on her and her work in academic or art history journals. A sentence or two or a paragraph here or there in low quality sources is not sigcov. She is in zero museum collections or any other notable collections. She has never been in a notable show such as the Whitney Biennial, Venice Biennalle, Documenta, or exhibited in any notable galleries or museums. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Bowery Wall is notable, but it does not make her notable because she tagged it with her name

I never said this. I said she produced work that was part of a significant exhibition as stated by an independent reliable secondary source, and thus she satisfies WP:NARTIST.

Just because ArtNet has profiles of tens of thousands of artists who are actually notable such as Jean-Michel Basquiat, does not mean their notability rubs off on her by association

I also never said this. I said it is a reliable independent secondary source, and thus it grants her notability.

There is precisely zero in-depth significant coverage - WP:SIGCOV. What would constitute sigcov would be feature articles and reviews in notable magazines like Art in America, ARTFORUM, ArtNews; a chapter in a book on graffiti art or a monograph on her work, articles or essays on her and her work in academic or art history journals.

WP:SIGCOV doesn't say anything about sources being "notable", only reliable. She clearly has reliable secondary significant coverage that addresses her directly and in detail.

A sentence or two or a paragraph here or there in low quality sources is not sigcov.

She clearly has more than a few sentences or paragraphs.

She is in zero museum collections or any other notable collections. She has never been in a notable show such as the Whitney Biennial, Venice Biennalle, Documenta, or exhibited in any notable galleries or museums

That isn't what her biography (an independent reliable secondary source) says. Jaqoc (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is clearly insufficient as the article now stands. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Curiocurio (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She has an independent reliable secondary biographical source from a notable network of art galleries, a magazine interview that provides secondary analysis, further independent secondary analysis from the magazine, artwork that is a substantial part of a significant exhibition as stated by her independent reliable secondary biographical source, descriptions of her work from independent secondary sources, thus satisfying WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and not WP:TOOSOON Jaqoc (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaqoc, I understand that it is distressing to see an article that you care about at AfD, but your responses here are wading into bludgeoning territory. Please try to ease off going forward. Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Non-existant references and nothing to replace them with. scope_creep^Talk 08:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST, where are the wikinotable galleries/museums holding the artist's work or significant exhibitions of their work? new/significant concept/work (tagging including over possibly significant works)? nope, multiple reviews (excluding artist interviews) of work? nope, WP:TOOSOON? possibly. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG upcoming but not notable at this point. A case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 18 February 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valley View Christian Church (Dallas)[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails WP:N, I have searched for reliable sources which might confer notability and found none. The is the second AfD for this page, the first was conducted in 2005. I would urge any users who might have a personal connection to the church to declare this when posting. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the article should have been deleted at the first AfD in 2005, which was closed as if it were a vote rather than a discussion based on policy. No online sources which could confer notability appear to exist. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ROTM, a search of local newspaper databases reveals nothing about this church that rises above WP:ROUTINE. Carguychris (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another church with no sourced indication of notability, whether historic or modern. The article itself also reads like an advertisement. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see nothing special in the article to indicate that this is not just a ROTM local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 12 February 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!} 06:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Tandberg[edit]

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

Fails GNG, WP:CRIME and WP:AUTHOR Star Garnet (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pimp who shot a more famous criminal in self-defense would not have their own article under almost any circumstances. His books appear to have minimal holdings, even in Norway, and have very minimal reviews. While Dagbladet dubbed him a 'well-known criminial author,' that appears to be a case of tabloid journalism. The same tabloid listed one of his books to be one of Norway's top crime novels, but I can find nothing to corroborate that. Star Garnet (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find this guy mentioned in any English language sources. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG and NAUTHOR. NickCT's claim that only English sources are usable, is preposterous. The same goes for the belief that Goodreads is a usable source for reviews of 25 year old non-English works. Norway has no tabloid newspapers if by tabloid is meant WP:UNRELIABLESOURCEs like The Sun and Daily Mail. Geschichte (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the English sources point is ridiculous. I included Goodreads to show that the work is not clearly notable (as opposed to clearly not notable). Star Garnet (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - - While it's perfectly fine to look for reviews there, Norwegian releases tend to be quite widely reviewed in Norway, and it's easier to ask on my talkpage if it's desirable to add more reviews. For starters, I added nine reviews of his debut. Geschichte (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - What sort of database do you use to find these reviews? I'm sure they're real; I'm just curious. Star Garnet (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll also note that while it clearly passes the bar of receiving independent reviews, I am unsure of the claim that his work is significant or well-known, the other half of WP:AUTHOR #3. Star Garnet (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        re "What sort of database do you use to find these reviews?" - Yes. I'd like to see them too. re "I am unsure of the claim that his work is significant or well-known" - Ditto. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        http://www.nb.no, the National Library of Norway. Foreign IPs can probably only see snippets. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geschichte and Star Garnet: - Preposterous? In the sense that you think he is mentioned in English language sources, or in the sense that that's not a rationale for deleting? So I take it you guys are relying on the "work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work" part of WP:AUTHOR? Having a reviewed book only counts if the book itself is already notable. How do you know the book itself is notable? It doesn't have its own WP page... NickCT (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nick CT, it's not relevant whether he is mentioned in English-language sources, or French, or Swahili, because he has several dozen, maybe over a hundred references in some language. Not having a Wikipedia page is also not relevant, because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and "Having a reviewed book only counts if the book itself is already notable" does not make sense at all. Reviews of Tandberg's first book started being printed on the day of release. How would it be notable before being reviewed then? And can you name one single AFD where this argument has been given weight in the discussion? Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's spelled out clearly in WP:AUTHOR. You misinterpret NickCT's phrase. Having reviews only matters if the work is "significant or well-known." It didn't have to achieve that status before it was reviewed. To date, the strongest indicator of his work being "significant or well-known" is that a singular writer or editorial team named a book as part of a fairly large group of a subgenre. Had he won a Riverton Prize, that would likely suffice, but he did not. I can't seem to find if he was a nominee. This would of course be irrelevant if he passed GNG, which is not sitisfied by book reviews and a handful of minor crime/complaints to authorities news items. Star Garnet (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - A work becomes well known by being reviewed in every major news outlet as soon as it hits the shelves! Of course, there is also tens of articles covering the release from a news standpoint. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That doesn't come remotely close to qualifying. Maybe one in 100 books that gets that many reviews becomes "significant or well-known." Probably closer to 1/1000. Star Garnet (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no idea what you are referring to whatsoever. WP:SIGCOV is WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I hadn't looked at WP:NBOOK in a little while, and it is incredible how low that drops the bar for notability. If that misconstruction of SIGCOV was applied across the board, I could easily source articles for 20+ tiny restaurants in my neighborhood, 12+ relatives, and 80%+ of small-town mayors across the US dating back 170+ years. But I guess others are happy to make WP's coverage of books indiscriminate. While I assume you took care to filter out the many self-promotional/interview reviews I encountered on nb.no, the only substantive pieces of info I encountered in 20+ articles mentioning Nattens joker were that it's dark and had disappointing sales. Star Garnet (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Geschichte and Star Garnet: - re "low ... bar" - I gotta concur with that. If you look at "two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", does that mean a book needs merely two reviews to be considered notable? Little ludicrous if you ask me. Anyways... this whole thing strikes me as an example of why we need some kind of Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) policy. This guy may have achieved some level of notability inside Norway, but it's clear he hasn't achieved global notability. NickCT (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sustained coverage of this gentleman in the news, and some reviews for his work, as well as his book getting in a top 25 list - taking into account there is not much in English as he is from Norway, passes wp:GNG and probably NAUTHOR. I also note there is already an article on him in the Norwegian language wiki, who certainly have a better ability to judge the Norwegian language RS than we do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion on another wiki is emphatically not a reason to keep on the English wiki. Wikis have different notability and enforcement standards (WP:OTHERLANGS). Norwegian's GNG equivalent is much more lax, and their recently written author criteria allows for the inclusion of any non-self-published author. Star Garnet (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes I know its not emphatically a reason, but it's generally something to take into consideration (In my opinion). I know there are differences in criteria, but yes allowing any non self published author is *quite* different. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. 67.168.136.107 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)— 67.168.136.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, a crime novelist who published multiple books is keep worthy. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, Goldenboot has a tendency to do this [4] and [5] and [6]. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 16 February 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, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Rafiq[edit]

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

actor who has only one unnamed role in a major series. The sources are all vanity spam and interviews. SANTADICAE🎅 17:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:28, 18 February 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 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewPGen[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR: the only hits on Scholar Google are a thesis and an ArXiV preprint (very rare to have only two hits) D.Lazard (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nomination; my searches only found passing mentions. A prod on this article was recently removed by User:Explicit, with the explanation that User:Gusfriend had proposed merging the content elsewhere, but with no good sources there is nothing to merge (and the proposed merge target was in any case too broad for mention of this software to be relevant). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked into this when I happened to see the list of prod'ed mathematics-related articles the other day, and I couldn't find any reason to keep it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I initially thought that there might be a place for it in one of the tables on the prime numbers page but I am happy with to support a delete.Gusfriend (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this isn't appropriate for a separate article. Star Mississippi 02:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazism in India[edit]

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

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)).

WP:POINTY stub created in order to avenge the deletion of Category:Neo-Nazism in India.[7] A WP:POVFORK of Neo-Nazism#India, there is nothing in the article which describe any foundation of "Neo-Nazism" in India. While it is possible that Neo-Nazim might have inspired some elements in Indian political discourse, just like it did all over the world, there is still no evidence that the ideology on its own exist in India.

A good example is that there is no Neo-Nazism in Japan and Neo-Nazism in Italy, even after Emperial Japan and Fascist Italy being allies with Nazi Germany during WW2. Wareon (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was also thinking of it just today. The article has 6 paragraphs in total. The first paragraph is the definition of Neo-Nazism. 2nd paragraph was directly lifted from Neo-Nazism#India. Third paragraph is about Savitri Devi who was not an Indian. The fourth paragraph concerns a few online 8chan trad users. Fifth paragraph is about an ice-cream shop named after Hitler (remember, mere admiration does not make you a Neo-Nazi). And finally, the sixth paragraph is same as the fourth one. Some sources speak about dubious "similarities" but they don't justify the outright Association fallacy. Support deletion per WP:SYNTH. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Directly lifting a para is not a crime here. You should see WP:CFORK and its rules. Venkat TL (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wareon Why did you not leave me a notification as mentioned in step 3 of WP:AFDHOWTO? I have found this now so it is not necessary to notify me now, but in future please do not skip this step. This is not optional. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article. This article was nominated for deletion within 24 hours of creation. It is already start class and has a good scope of expansion. Neo-Nazism at 178 KB has already crossed the WP:SIZERULE of 100KB to be split into separate articles. Following the rules this is a WP:CFORK and not a WP:POVFORK. OP is showing 2 redlinks, but ignores that there are already 20 pages in Category:Neo-Nazism by country. There has been a steady rise in both the numbers and activities of Neo Nazis in India. Multiple reliable sources document this. Nomination simply ignores these RS and events. Venkat TL (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Welle (www.dw.com), Deutsche. "Germany's India envoy visits 'Nazi-inspired' Hindu group | DW | 21.07.2019". DW.COM. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
- Casolari, Marzia (2000). "Hindutva's Foreign Tie-Up in the 1930s: Archival Evidence". Economic and Political Weekly. 35 (4): 218–228. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 4408848. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (July 2003). Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-3155-0. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (October 2000). Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-3111-6. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- "Hindu Nationalist's Historical Links to Nazism and Fascism". International Business Times. 6 March 2012.
- Chaudhury, Aadita. "Why white supremacists and Hindu nationalists are so alike". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
- "Hitler's Hindus: The Rise and Rise of India's Nazi-loving Nationalists". Haaretz. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
- "Nazism and Hindu Nationalism". The Holocaust Exhibition and Learning Centre. 19 April 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
- "Savitri Devi: The mystical fascist being resurrected by the alt-right". BBC News. 28 October 2017. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
- Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism. NYU Press, 2000.
- "Hindus, Sikhs should not be delusional about alliances with neo-Nazis". Hindustan Times. 25 November 2016. Retrieved 4 February 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: I would recommend you to read WP:SIZERULE. It clearly states These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. The article is much smaller than 100KB, you are quoting an incorrect figure.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (was ~~Delete~~) For the same reason I moved and redirected the content of Neo-Nazism in Costa Rica to Neo-Nazism: It seems it is a fringe topic in both countries that from time to time arise due to news about a handful of individuals, and that can be covered as a section in the article with the biggest scope. --Roqz (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roqz, you are !voting for delete and arguing for merge. Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by reading the thread I assumed that the content was copied from Neo-Nazism and elsewhere to Neo-Nazism in India so we won't lose any content, but you are right, if any, the new content can be merged back to Neo-Nazism. My point is that a standalone article is not needed, a section in Neo-Nazism is fine. Updated my vote. --Roqz (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roqz According to WP:SIZERULE, articles with size > 100KB should be split into WP:CFORKS. Neo-Nazism is already at 178KB Well beyond the limit. The suggestion to merge it back is absurd. Venkat TL (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note incorrect citation of sizerule. Responded to on the "Keep" recommendation by the editor.

@Venkat TL: If the problem is the Neo-Nazi article being bloated, wouldn't the most logical thing to do be turning a large section within the bloated article into a new article and replacing said section with a short, non-detailed summary? Instead, you pick one of the smallest, non-neutral sections from the bloated article, turn it into a new article, and then proceed to fill the new article with a generic definition, one-sided narratives and information about a vaguely related person; and mention a non-contentious film with a contentious title. Rockcodder (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nothing is undeserved there. See WP:CENSOR Venkat TL (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about anything there being undeserved. Please don't put words in my mouth. All I meant by 'non-neutral section' was the fact that Neo-Nazism#India represents the claim of Hindu nationalists having ties with "the totalitarian regimes" as fact but fails to clearly mention that there are reliable sources and experts who say/claim that Hindutva cannot be placed under the genus of fascism/nazism. Rockcodder (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lead consists of a generic definition of Neo-Nazism, a direct lift from the 'India' section of the Neo-Nazism article and a small paragraph that presents a one-sided narrative about Hindutva and Modi. The 'People' section talks about Savitri Devi, who wasn't an Indian citizen. Her conversion to Hindusim and involvement in espionage against the Allies in India doesn't change this fact. The section then talks about a few 8chan trolls who identify as 'trads' (a fringe group within the Indian rightwing). The 'Incidents' section talks about school textbooks from Gujarat but doesn't mention the state education department's claim that the problems arose due to poor translation of the book from Gujarati into English.^[1] The section then mentions a one-off incident about a pool parlour named Hitler's Den. Like Captain Jack Sparrow said above, mere admiration does not make you a Neo-Nazi. The section then mentions the Bulli Bai incident and calls its perpetrators a 'neo-Nazi-inspired alt-right group' based on a dubious claim from a Vice article. The 'Media' section mentions a movie named Dear Friend Hitler/Gandhi to Hitler which is based on the letters written by Gandhi where he addresses Hitler as 'dear friend'. Time to add Gandhi to the 'People' section? Rockcodder (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'Nazi' row over Indian textbooks". 23 July 2005.

Delete My issue is the article doesn't actually seem to describe neo-nazism in India.RKT7789 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article is greatly expanded since some of the people above !voted delete, is still has similar problems: it describes many aspects associated with nazism in India, but they're either from an era before 'neo'-nazism became a thing (WW2), or it's about political groups that find inspiration in neo-nazism, but aren't neonazis themselves. Given the high risk of disruption in this topic area, I don't think a rewrite is desirable if at all possible. Femke (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene, thanks for noting the improvement. Would a rename to Nazism in India satisfy you? There is a lot of material from post WW2, yet to be added here. I will add in coming days. Venkat TL (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the overlap with Hindutva would be too large. With broad controversial articles, I would like to see very good reasons for articles with a lot of overlap to co-exist. It's difficult to maintain. Femke (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene, if there is a lot of overlap, users will then merge the two articles. Nazism is one the prime characteristic of Hindutva. Right now Hindutva stands at 105KB already crossed the WP:SIZERULE of 100KB. So this is another reason this can co-exist with Hindutva. Neo-Nazism in India fills a specific void. There is a fast growing Neo Nazi base in India. Admiration for Nazism – often reframed with a genocidal hatred for Muslims – is rampant in the Hindu nationalist camp, which has never been as mainstream as it is now Haaretz Venkat TL (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note incorrect citation of sizerule. Responded to on the "Keep" recommendation by the editor.

I may be able to be convinced if you find a high-quality source (so not an opinion piece) that clearly delineates the topics. I don't see that yet. Femke (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. (I forgot to add in my last comment above that) this article as it stands contains enough unique content to merit its existence as a standalone article beside Nazism and others. Venkat TL (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not say anything like "There is a fast growing Neo Nazi base in India," but relies on false balances in making the comparison with Nazism and the ideologies in India. You would also want to include Arvind Kejriwal to this article[8] since you are so eager to promote trad-trolls as neo-nazis in India. 182.77.126.52 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as total absurd. The sources provided by the creator only appear to be equating hatred towards Muslims in India with hatred towards Jews in Germany. We already got Islamophobia in India, what else do we need? There is no Anti-semitism - the biggest requirement within Nazism - in India. The creator could make sense if they had created a Anti-Muslim activities equated with Neo-Nazism in India but nevertheless even that would get deleted. 182.77.126.52 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is edit warring to restore his misrepresentation of sources and off-topic content he wants to include for the sake of expansion. @Femkemilene: This seems like a case of "throw enough garbage at the wall, some of it will stick", but editors here should ensure that none of that will stick. 182.77.126.52 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Good grief. WP:SYNTH coupled with WP:OR. I'm especially unimpressed with the equating of the symbol on File:Jaipur 03-2016 38 Garh Ganesh Temple.jpg with the Nazi use of the Swastika, whcih it is not. This is trying to force the uneducated reader to a conclusion that cannot be drawn. There is something very WP:POINTY about this article. WP:NOTFORUM applies, with consideration of warning the creating editor and any who push this bizarre faux-argument as to their rights and responsibilities on Wikipedia Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For any editor doubting that the file referred to is used incorrectly in this article and thus adds to WP:SYNTH reading Swastika will be illuminating Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-The author claims to have expanded the article, though I find all the same issues still in the article. Further, new problematic sources have been introduced in an attempt to inflate the article. Sources like Haaretz, which is an opinion piece and thus not WP:RS, have been used as the basis for multiple paragraphs as well as an entire section. Article is still entirely without merit. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting Large content removal during AfD. Should probably compare versions before deciding on deletion, though it looks like removal of SYNTH and OR. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's quality is obviously extremely bad, with the large amount of unreliable sources, as has been noted. It also seems to fundamentally misunderstand what Neo-nazism is. Most of the article is the history of Indian interaction with actual Nazism, and then a list of a few incidents which are not actually examples of Neo-Nazism. Since Neo-Nazism involves white supremacy and antisemitism, and there are hardly and whites or Jews in India, there simply isn't enough of a Neo-Nazi movement in India to be WP:NOTABLE, which is why this article has to resort to either using unreliable sources or WP:SYNTH. The creator's stated justification for splitting from an already dubious section in Neo-Nazism#India is nonsense - this doesn't help with the size of that article at all. --पदाति (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neo Nazism involves antisemitism *AND* "Islamophobia". Your comment is the vanilla version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to censor information. Venkat TL (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something has characteristics associated with Neo-Nazism doesn't make it Neo-Nazism. Antisemitism is a key component of Neo-Nazism which is not largely prevalent in India. Many Neo-Nazis are Islamophobes, but Islamophobia is not necessarily Neo-Nazism. --पदाति (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: No he's right, point to an actual case of neo-nazism in the article, I can't seem to find any. Savitri Devi would be acceptable except she didn't spend the post-war years in India, so adding her is a bit deceptive. If the article was named "Far-right in India", I'd accept it.RKT7789 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I have to teach you what Neo Nazism is. Copy from Neo-Nazi

“

Neo-Nazis employ their ideology to promote hatred and white supremacy, attack racial and ethnic minorities (which include antisemitism and Islamophobia), and in some cases to create a fascist state.^[1]^[2] Neo-Nazism is a global phenomenon, with organized representation in many countries and international networks. It borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including antisemitism, ultranationalism, racism, xenophobia, ableism, homophobia, anti-Romanyism, anti-communism, and creating a "Fourth Reich".

”

References

^ Gay, Kathlyn (1997) Neo-Nazis: A Growing Threat. Enslow. p. 114. ISBN 978-0894909016. Quote: "Neo-Nazis ... use fear and violence in their efforts to destroy minorities. Their goal is to establish a "superior" society."(emphasis added)
^ Staff (ndg) "Ideologies: Neo Nazi" Southern Poverty Law Center. Quote: "While some neo-Nazi groups emphasize simple hatred, others are more focused on the revolutionary creation of a fascist political state." (emphasis added)

small jewish population means Antisemitism is not predominantly seen, it is Islamophobia that is the dominant in Indian Nazis. Since the Indians are non white, apart from white Supremacy, Indian Nazis demonstrate all the others forms of hatred listed above. Venkat TL (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make them Neo-Nazis. --पदाति (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you what Scholars say. You are here to WP:Censor, so it is obvious. Do not ping me again.
@Venkat TL: Your quote isn't a definition of Neo-Nazism, it's a description of some of the actions Neo-Nazis often take. Just because some ideologies have some similarities with Neo-Nazism doesn't make them Neo-Nazi. Antisemitism and White Supremacy are key components of Neo-Nazism, you can't just dismiss that. Please WP:AGF instead of throwing around accusations of censorship - this isn't the first time you have done this.

And even by your own definition people quoted in the article arent neo-nazis. Even JFK said nice things about Hitler, but Nazism is an actual ideology, not just "when you're racist".RKT7789 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you guys stop pinging me and start emailing the historians and scholars who have written these scholarly references (linked in the article) about the rise of Neo-Nazism in India. Venkat TL (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: Why did you invite people to take part in the discussion if you dont want them to present their opinions?RKT7789 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address the angry comment you left on my talk page, you aren't outright deleting peoples comments but you do get very angry when they present them. Just saying.RKT7789 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: I have no dispute with the scholars. You are the one doing WP:SYNTH to try to claim they're saying something they're not. --पदाति (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A spin-off article for a specific region is not a WP:POVFORK. Neo-Nazism is a global movement, and we could use articles on its local variants. Dimadick (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it seems to be a POVFORK because no effort was made to add content to the actual article in the first place. Neo-Nazism has had a presence only in 31 countries (none in India) so far, some of which no longer have any neo-Nazi organizations. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a subtle but critical distinction between (A) scholarly material that analyzes similarities and connections between Nazism and the contemporary strand of Hindu nationalism, and (B), Neo-nazism in India. There's ample scholarly material in category (A), but none of it covers neo-nazism specifically; and I say this having read over a hundred scholarly pieces about the history and ideology of Hindu nationalism. The content in this article is synthesis of the forbidden sort, i.e., material from multiple sources thrown together to reach conclusions completely supported by none of them. The only sources I see actually discussing neo-nazism in India are the vice.com source and the Wire source, which are not enough for an article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Vanamonde the only sources dealing with neo nazism in India are Vice and Wire clearly not enough for an article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nom, Timtrent, and Vanamonde. The primary contributor neglected to distinguish Nazism and Hindutva. Nazism is founded on anti-Jewish white supremacy. Where are whites in Indian politics? As scholars mention, Hindu nationalism's intention to wipe out Muslims may sound similar to the Nazi's intention to wipe out Jews, however, scholars mindfully used the term "almost fascism" when connotating that objective, which had also attracted a fair amount of criticism. This article is in violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:POVFORK. And, Hindutva#Fascist and Nazi undertones article does a better job of elucidating "almost fascism" phrasing. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To reason further, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, wildly considered to be the father of Hindu nationalism, articulated his flavor towards the Jews, which subverts the whole literal ideology of Nazism, Antisemitism and Neo-Nazism to begin with.
If the Zionists' dreams are ever realized—if Palestine becomes a Jewish State and it will gladden us almost as much as our Jewish friends— they, like the [...]
— Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Essentials of Hindutva (PDF). p. 52.
WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 07:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLinuz, this is a ludicrous defense.

As our article notes:
As World War II become imminent, Savarkar advocated a policy of neutralism centered on India's geostrategic equations but his rhetoric grew coarser and he expressed consistent support for Hitler's policy about Jews. In a speech on October 14, it was suggested that Hitler's ways be adopted for dealing with Indian Muslims. On December 11, he characterized the Jews as a communal force. Next March, Savarkar would welcome Germany's revival of Aryan culture, their glorification of Swastika, and the "crusade" against Aryan enemies — it was hoped that German victory would finally invigorate the Hindus of India.
By the end of 1939, he was directly equating the Muslims of India with German Jews — in the words of Chetan Bhatt, both were suspected of harboring extra-national loyalties and became illegitimate presences in an organic nation. It remains unknown whether Savarkar withdrew his support for Nazi Germany after the Holocaust became common knowledge. However, in 1961 he had spoken favorably of Hitler's Nazism.

Fwiw, I don't deem Savarkar to be an anti-semite either. Nuance etc.

That being said, closers are requested to not consider my comment to be in support of preserving this article. See my !vote below. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: The book I quoted is a primary work of Savarkar, and it's solely used to show that he himself was not anti-semitic, specifically - the only purpose it serves. Be it Nazism or Neo-Nazism, the literal ideology is centered around antisemitism and white supremacy. I'm aware of the nuances, but thanks. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a short summary to Nazi_chic#Asia - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to Nazi_chic#Asia - This article has nothing to do with "the use of Nazi-era style, imagery, and paraphernalia in clothing and popular culture,".
Merge relevant parts (below extract) to Nazi chic#Asia
In 2006, a restaurant named Hitler's Cross was opened in Mumbai, it was later renamed after protests by the Indian Jewish community.^[1] 'Nazi Collection' Bedspread was launched, by a Mumbai-based home furnishing company in 2007.^[2] In 2007, in Gujarat a men's clothing store named Hitler was in the news. After the outrage owners claimed they did not know Adolf Hitler.^[3]

In 2011, a pool parlour named Hitler's Den was opened in Nagpur. It included Nazi insignia and Swastika. The Israeli embassy in India expressed displeasure with the naming. Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organisation called for the parlour to be renamed. The owners of the establishment refused to rename their parlour.^[4]^[5]
@Piotrus: Rockcodder (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC); edited 13:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Mumbai's 'Hitler's Cross' Restaurant to Change Name After Uproar". Haaretz. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
^ "'Nazi Collection' Bedspread Outrages Indian Jews". Haaretz. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
^ "'Hitler' Clothing Store in India Asked by Jewish Community to Change Name". Haaretz. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
^ Choudhari, Abhishek (22 March 2011). "'Hitler's Den' angers Israeli embassy | Nagpur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 February 2022.
^ "Jewish rights body demand renaming of 'Hitler's Den' in Nagpur". NDTV.com. Retrieved 10 February 2022.

Oppose merge. The editor seems to have mixed up the usage of Swastik in Hinduism to the usage of Swastika in Nazi propaganda. Not surprising given the amount of misleading statements and images in the article drawing false parallels to Hindu imagery. Pointed out by Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me before.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge; as I discuss above, any scholarly material currently featured in the article compares and contrasts Hindutva and Nazism; it does not establish the presence of literal nazism in India. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not merge, this POV fork. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article relies upon WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and thus should not be merged. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article is actually about neo-Nazism in India. About half the article talks about the 1930s and 40s, which is not "neo". Then there are mentions of school textbooks, but the article does not claim that these textbooks are connected to neo-Nazism. Then there are mentions of various incidents, which again the article does not claim are actually connected to neo-Nazism. The only thing left is the section about trads, which is primarily a Western phenomenon that has gained some traction in India; only three sentences are actually about trads in India as opposed to trads in general. And to top it all off, everything in those three sentences is already in Neo-Nazism#India. So this article is pointless. Mlb96 (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vanamonde. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. I don't think I can add much else to what Vanamonde has already said. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the tiny relevant fraction to Nazi_chic#Asia then redirect this there or disambiguate between that article and Neo-Nazism#India. Despite what has been suggested above, there is some relevant content, as shown by references such as this, this or this. Quote:

“

In 2006, a restaurant named Hitler's Cross was opened in Mumbai, it was later renamed after protests by the Indian Jewish community.[22] 'Nazi Collection' Bedspread was launched, by a Mumbai-based home furnishing company in 2007.[23] In 2007, in Gujarat a men's clothing store named Hitler was in the news. After the outrage owners claimed they did not know Adolf Hitler.[24] In 2011, a pool parlour named Hitler's Den was opened in Nagpur. It included Nazi insignia and Swastika.

”

This IS Nazi chic stuff. Although I concur that majority of the current article is NOT related to Nazi chic and not mergeable, my point is that those few sentences are relevant and should be preserved by merging before the rest of this article is deleted or redirected. I think User:GizzyCatBella was right. @Rockcodder, Timtrent, and Vanamonde93: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added to the Asia section by Tayi Arajakate, thanks.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wishes to salvage that tiny piece of content, I don't particularly care, but the incidents in question are only reported on as incidents; not a coherent whole. There's still a synthesis problem. Furthermore, a redirect would be utterly inappropriate; redirecting "Neo-nazism in India" to an incident about bedspreads is trivializing the issue. The title shouldn't exist, because it's not received treatment in reliable sources; but if we're concerned with it as a search term, it should go to the relevant section of Hindutva, not to Nazi-chic. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 18 February 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. While I have been in general in favor of the redirects, JPL and asilvering make a case for why the red link might be more helpful to article development. Star Mississippi 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henrique Camargo[edit]

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

The article lacks significant coverage. The article also does not meet our Olympic inclusion guidelines. A search for more infomation found no more information on this person. However there is an actor of the same name who has had roles in 2 films in the last year. So this is not a suitable target for redirect since it is not at all clear this person is who people would be searching for if they enter this name. I found some other results for this name, but the other results than the actor all seemed either to have Henrique as the middle name with the person normally using the first name as well, or Camargo was the middle name/maybe apellido primero (primary surname) with a name following Camargo. In those cases I did not look closely enough to figure out if Camargo was even going to show up in all searchs for the person. There is no reason to suppose this is the most close to notable person with this name, and so it is not at all a good target for a redirect. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- This article was while I was in the process of creating the AfD unilaterally redirected by the creator. This seems a very irregular action since there was a notice of a deletion discussion on the article. Also as I explained in my nomination it is a very poor redirect target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE. The full AfD process took the nom the best part of an hour to complete, hence the original redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained above that there is an actor who is most likely a much better target for this name, and there may be others, so this is not at all a good candidate for a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the case against a redirect for this. Lots of google hits coming up for "Henrique Camargo" or "(Something) Henrique Camargo"; the redirect would probably confuse more readers than it would aid. I don't know that it's all that useful to retain the edit history of a one-line stub in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not suitable for redirect per above comments. Cbl62 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. If we actually create an article on the actor, that would change things, but until then, this is fine really. Smartyllama (talk) 15:44, 18 February 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 23:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Tower Residence[edit]

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

Non-notable suburban apartment building PepperBeast (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment wouldnt the first skyscraper in a city attract some attention and be somewhat notable, i might be stupid just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk) 17:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources whatsoever and the building is the 197th tallest in Brazil, so I don't know how this building can be possibly notable. Also, this same unsourced article was created in the pt.WP by the same editor. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the tallest building in a city isn't that notable when the city (Jaú) isn't even one of the 20 largest cities in its own state (São Paulo (state)). In fact, Jaú has less than half the population of the 20th largest city in the state. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wine bar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organic wine bar[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. The vast majority is about such topics as organic winemaking, biodynamics, and other topics that have their own articles. PepperBeast (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK for the author to talk about buzzwords rather than something that satisfies GNG. I don't see anything that needs to be merged somewhere here either. KoA (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wine bar, where the subject can be adequately covered. I really don’t see how the two are independently notable from each other and I do not think it wise to have the two topics be covered separately. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wine bar. This can be its own section. ArdynOfTheAncients — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. a typo is not a reason for deletion when these subjects are routinely considered notable. Star Mississippi 02:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Connecticut State Senate election[edit]

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

It says took place on November 8, 2022. I don't know what is wrong with the article. Is it problem with the grammar, or will it take place on? In either way, it is too soon to become an article. And though Senate elections will be considered notable as per WP:N, but this article doesn't seem to pass WP:N or WP:GNG. I probably would have CSDed this article, but thought a discussion might be better, as the subject would be notable in the near future, but currently is too early to qualify to become an article. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they meet the same criteria:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the primary election is in May for Alabama and August for Connecticut; that's only a few months away. A grammatical problem is not a good reason to delete an article, and these elections certainly will be considered notable in a few months; deletion right now doesn't improve anything. Also, there is no valid CSD criteria that would fit these articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This election is coming up soon, the "took place on November 8, 2022" is an obvious typo from a previous version of a similar article. Topic is notable, very easily passes notability even now [9] [10], and is happening in the near enough future that it should be kept. Nominating an obviously in progress article less than two hours after it was created is also bad practice. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, the behavior of the creator of the article, dropping incomplete articles in mainspace and refusing to communicate, is unacceptable and should be dealt with, but that doesn't change that the topic is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on whether this individual passes WP's notability guidelines. I'd suggest giving a bit more time for the article to be developed before re-evaluating. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Cradock-Watson[edit]

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

Turning directories and databases into prose doesn't make someone notable. This directory[11] is the main source, the remainder is a cricket database and very short, official mentions in the London Gazette (a primary source basically, and nothing in depth). No other or better sources seem to be available for the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First-class cricketer who meets WP:NCRIC. Wider WP:GNG established by his war-time efforts, which led to the United States decorating him with the Legion of Merit – a rare award to be bestowed to a foreigner. There are no rules in Wikipedia which state you can't turn a directory into prose, or indeed databases for that matter. They are reliable sources, as are those found in the London Gazette, a cornerstone of many military history articles on this site. StickyWicket (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Meeting NCRIC in itself is a worthless achievement, as NCRIC gives no indication of actually being a notable cricketer or not (as seen here, where the only source who gives some more information, the aeroplane directory, doesn't even mention his cricketing, and all we have about his cricket are databases). The Legion of Merit was given out quite liberally during and shortly after the war, and that one issue of the London Gazette alone lists 20+ British people getting the same rank that day, and 15 or so getting a higher rank. And obviously that wasn't the only time that award was bestowed upon British military personnel. And you are arguing a strawman: I didn't argue that the London Gazette isn't a reliable source, I said that it is a primary source and doesn't count for notability: it simply lists official dispatches and announcements, it is not the work of journalists and doesn't provide commentary, research, insights, background, ... Fram (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fram:The article doesn't meet the broader definition of NCRIC as the matches he played in aren't on the list of competitions we consider to be at the highest domestic level. I'm simply considering GNG in this case and, in comparison with a number of other sports biography articles, find that it far exceeds the level of sourcing that seems to be acceptable at, for example, NBASE related articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. There are many sports articles with sourcing and notability issues: but keeping these articles because others also have similar issues is not the solution of course. The question is whether he meets WP:GNG requirements of sourcing, not whether we have even worse articles. Fram (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd say it's more about precedent, which is something I refer to regularly at AfD (for example, here back in 2019. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't really see how a general comment about articles in another sport is a precedent for this AfD though. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, OK - I was sort of referring to (obliquely clearly) two recent Baseball AfD: Joe Fagin and John Dwyer, although the later was formally closed as no consensus. I'd also stack up the arguments and relative quality of Jeff Atkins, a current AfD, and maybe Jamie Fitzgerald, also ongoing. Neither seem to have done anything more notable than the chap here - in fact, he seems much more notable than either. Apologies for being oblique. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please. Wait more than an hour before sending something to AfD. Or request more to be added. AfD doesn't work while an article is still in development. It's thanks to pressure from within the project that AA is only now creating articles for individuals who have more to be written about. I worked for long enough on New Page Patrol to see which articles had nowhere to go and which needed tagging.(And how few people worked on New Page Patrol, but that's another matter!) Bobo . 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's quite encouraging these days that posting a message on WT:CRIC simply saying, "is there more to be written?" will get eyes upon an article, especially for an individual from an English-speaking country. Bobo . 13:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have access to the Liverpool Echo article or the second source, can someone briefly state the contents of both in relation to Cradock-Watson, before I offer my views. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Liverpool Echo contains just 3 sentences: (1) name, rank, youngest son, address in Tunbridge Wells, awarded OBE; (2) father was headmaster at Merchant Taylors where he went to school, went to Oxford Uni; (3) school cricket captain, "really good wicketkeeper", distinguished in athletics at Oxford gaining half-blue. There is a very similar article in the Kent & Sussex Courier ([12]), which adds: (1) identical to Liverpool Echo 1; (2) employment with Burma-Shell Oil in India from which was released to join the RAF; (3) served in the Middle East attached to the Eighth Army; (4 & 5) much condensed version of Liverpool Echo 2 & 3. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not just for his cricket career, albeit breif, but mainly for his OBE, per WP:ANYBIO ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Obviously there is some coverage on the player, and he played 6 FC matches, but I'm not sure there's enough for a GNG pass. Wjemather has given me a synopsis of the sourcing I can't read, and it seems to show some coverage that could be considered GNG, but potentially not enough for a GNG pass. The article though is a new one, so perhaps more can be found in a more indepth search over time, so I'm currently down as a weak delete, and a very weak one at that. Perhaps this could be revisited in 6 months to see if more can be found in that time, given his career was in a period before the internet and when archiving was limited. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why first course of action should never be "send to AfD". First course of action should always be "approach to see if anything more can be done". And WP:CRIC is very good at doing that, in the main. When an article gets sent to AfD only an hour after it is created, (not including speedy deletions of nonsense, or clearly non-notable individuals), it is unclear how much information there is to be found, and when an article is going through an AfD process while this is happening, it renders the AfD meaningless. (And why WP:G4 exists and its application needs to be closely followed. Ahh, years of vandal patrol coming good!) Bobo . 18:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, experienced editors shouldn't be creating articles without having good indepth sources for the subject, not just creating them in the hope that eventually such sources will be found. People should write actual articles, not one-line repetitiveness based on a stats database and without regards of whether that line does the person justice in any way (sometimes it looks as if some cricket editors think that a person playing some games in their youth just has to be the most notable thing anyone can have done, even though in quite a few cases it turns out that someone is notable for completely different stuff and the cricket is just a footnote). Fram (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I write one-line repetitive articles do I? And there was me thinking you'd trolled my edit history in some detail. I think you'll find my contributions to the cricket project are far from "one–line repetitiveness". And yes, cricketers are often notable for other things, with their cricket being a footnote, much like this guy, or this guy, or even this guy, which I'm sure you will agree are fine examples of "one–line repetitiveness"! StickyWicket (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moral high ground AA. The point of "one-line repetitive articles" is to be built on by other contributors should they so wish. If they can't do so, then we end up with a situation like this where people send to AfD because they assume there's nothing more to add. Project history proves that there is plenty we are able to add and that we are willing to do so. Bobo . 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it wasn't an instance of "further sources to be found", as the sources were added by AA later. He stated in his opening edit summary that there was more to come (AA, you might want to have made that more obvious). And in any case, "send to AfD" and "please can you find further sources" are two completely different courses of action and should be two separate discussions. It is not made obvious that discussion two happened first, and it probably should have. Bobo . 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the "notability" of many cricket players with articles, the "cooperation" I have seen in many other discussions from some cricket regulars, the lack of good sources even after expansion (and the total lack of better sources a WP:BEFORE revealed), no, I see no reason to use a different approach for cricket articles than for other articles I encounter at NPP. I notice in this very discussion that enough cricket editors still have the mistaken belief that NCRIC is a good indicator of notability, or still don't seem to know what indepth secondary sources look like. I have little interest in first trying to have a discussion on the cricket project talk pages, to then have the same discussion at AfD anyway in many cases. Fram (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact you've put the word "co-operation" in inverted commas is a sad and ironic reflection on why at least half-a-dozen serial content creators have scarpered... Such is life. Sigh. Bobo . 19:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest Bobo... StickyWicket (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for repeating myself but for all our faults as a project, I consider our ability to find further sources one of our best qualities. Bobo . 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Cricket Project has been very accommodating to amending WP:NCRIC, this is evidenced by the number of redirects to cricket list articles; in the past this would not have happened. When we find additional sources and bring these together, we build an article. In short we are building an encyclopedia; and that's the Cricket Project's aim, to broaden knowledge about the sport from it's earliest days to the present, creating the most in-depth coverage of cricket in the world. It will take time, Rome wasn't built in a day. And to be honest, I see little difference between this article and the cricket stubs you often deride, afterall, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. StickyWicket (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: the article does not provide any sources which provide significant coverage of this person. The current sources verify the basic facts of his life, but do not provide any indication that he meets WP:BIO given that they are almost all database entries of various sorts. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletewe lack actual in depth coverage as required by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Not denying that, but the article can certainly be expanded and the article can add some additional sources such as these - 1 2 3. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk • contribs)

First source you give, section "Biography", full text: "Do you have more information about this person? Inform us!" That about sums it up... The second source is a government list of names, so not indepth or independent (and I can't even find him in there, but I may have missed it), and the third source lists one Craddock and no Cradocks, so again no idea how it is supposed to help here. All in all, none of the three sources establish any notability, and two of the three don't seem to even mention him. Fram (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WellThisIsTheReaper: I'm curious to know what you think could be added from these sources. Like Fram, all I am seeing from your links is a largely empty database listing (that simply references the London Gazette announcements) and two books in which he is not mentioned at all. If it wasn't for the first link, I'd be convinced you had accidentally posted to the wrong AFD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: Good point, looking again, I can hardly see any sources relating to the subject. However, looking at his FC career, it is enough for a WP:CRIC pass and a WP:N pass too. And, as clearly said by Bobo earlier, digging up sources is one of WP:NCRIC "finest" qualities. Why not for this subject too? Certainly some credible sources can be dug up to this subject. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you add those sources here in the first place? It is very strange behaviour to add two sources which don't even mention the subject to support your "keep", then to admit that "I can hardly see any sources relating to the subject", but to state that they pass WP:N anyway. Your reply to Wjemather below is equally baffling. It reads as if you want to keep it, sources be damned, and that at first you tried it by adding sources in the hope that no one would check them, and now that you have been found out, you just make empty claims in the hope that whoever closes this will do a votecount and not look at the actual reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it. Fram (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: I was merely suggesting that such sources could be found. For example, this, this, or even this. You will find that these sources do indeed source Cradock. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does seem to pass WP:CRIC. Barely passes WP:N with Watson's position as wing commander (WC) during World War II. Passes WP:GNG as well on that note --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just above, you agreed with JPL's comment that we "lack actual in depth coverage as required by GNG"; here you state "passes GNG". What has changed? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: Yes, however, it does indeed passes WP:GNG, in my opinion. Above, I wasn't denying to the point that the current sources in the article don't give any info or indication to the extent in which it necessarily passes WP:BIO. I wasn't "not denying" that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements are contradictory, and in some respects, incoherent. Sources (containing significant coverage) are needed to pass GNG, but you "can hardly see any sources" and claim this "passes GNG". I give up. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm convinced that there's enough coverage just about and that there's enough notability outside of cricket that once we add the fc career in that we can meet a reasonable standard of notability here. It's not overwhelming, but there's enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:00, 17 February 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. Nearly three weeks after the only non delete vote, which wasn't particularly strong and wanted sources. No objection to the creation of a redirect should one be so desired, but this is an extremely unlikely search term. Star Mississippi 02:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove (Maple Grove, Minnesota)[edit]

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

First off, there seems to be little evidence that this shopping center is even called "The Grove". Hempel Companies, the leasing agent, calls it The Grove Village.

Furthermore, the sourcing is almost nonexistant:

Source 1 is about the Target store in the greater context of Target in the Twin Cities
Sources 3 and 5 are WP:PRIMARY.
Source 4 is a store closing list for Office Depot that only mentions the Grove store in passing.
Source 6 is purely about Aldi.
Source 7 is about the real estate company that owned the center.
Source 8 is about health offices that seem to be independent of the property.

While a shopping center of 500,000 SF or higher would generally be notable, Hempel doesn't even seem to consider Home Depot and Target as part of the property, just the little strip comprising about 10-15 stores. Subtract the office space and the size goes down even further. It's barely even a neighborhood strip mall at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This area of Maple Grove is only notable at the local level, and "The Grove" is nonexistent as an entity.TH1980 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing clearly is not there on this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. My first impression when I came to the article was to list it for deletion myself, but I did not do so because apparently the mall once met the standard for notability. It was authored by Carbrera, who certainly seems to have the ability to improve it, if he chooses. If he does not so choose, I suggest a merge with Maple Grove, Minnesota, where it and a similar mall are already listed. Kablammo (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the merge proposal above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 11 February 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!} 05:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleTV Beta[edit]

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

Hopelessly unencyclopedic. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, source search revealed no results. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 09:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: I agree with you there, it is also written in a way that isn't suitable for Wikipedia Jamo62 (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete Google TV Beta - There are at least two issues with this article, notability and encyclopedic tone. It should be noted that the author has created this page both in article space and in draft space. This may be due either to ignorance or in order to game the system so that the article cannot be moved into draft space. However, that did not prevent the article from being nominated for deletion. As to notability, a review of the sources shows that only the Lifehacker article may be possibly be considered secondary. If it is considered secondary, there is one independent reliable secondary source, and it does not pass general notability. This does not mean that other sources do or do not exist.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Lifehacker.com	Description of the hoax	Yes	Yes	Probably	Maybe
2	Lifehacker.com	Same as 1	Yes	Yes		Maybe
3	Lifehacker.com	Same as 1	Yes	Yes		Maybe
4	Techcrunch.com	Identification as a hoax	Yes	No	Yes	No
5	Gizmodo.com	Coverage of the possible hoax	Yes	No	Yes	No
6	Gizmodo.com	Coverage as a hoax	Yes	No	Yes	No

The other issue is that the tone of the article is completely unencyclopedic. This also does not mean that another article cannot be written. This article fails on both notability and tone, and should be deleted. The draft should be tagged as needing to be blown up and started over, with nothing surviving the stubbing down except the title. An article would be a good idea, but not this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not encyclopedic at all. And while we are at it, the editor seems to have created the Infinitesolutions article as well, which I think should also be deleted. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 12 February 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!} 05:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Experts[edit]

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

They do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. smu.edu and GDBEA are not mentioning the page subject. One other source is self business website, another is profile. Daringsmith (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator's analysis of the sources. Existence is not notability, and there is insufficient content in reliable sources to base an article. Local awards and brief mentions don't cut it. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any source that meets the criteria.--Art&football (talk) 00:18, 18 February 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Singh[edit]

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

Notability for politician is in question. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 07:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and notability is not inherited the fact her husband was a MLA does not make her notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never elected to any public office GeezGod (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of passing NPOL or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Potential[edit]

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

Little information about it on a google search, the article is a stub, not very notable, outdated information on it, and little known about subject currently. | Remember, Imurmate (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. | Remember, Imurmate (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Miss Potential is renowned in New Zealand racing history as a top level performer who was incredibly consistent, as shown by her record of wins and placings. As well as Group 1 wins in New Zealand she also won a Group 1 race in Australia which is a great accomplishment. User:ToddyOC 15/2/2022
Delete for lack of notability. The NZ Herald article looks decent enough as a source, but not the other linked racing page (which appears to have expired anyway).-Markeer 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a normal amount of very routine racing "news", but nothing that comes anywhere near significant coverage or in-depth. Essentially a single event, ie, not being put down after breaking a foot bone, but that is it. Aoziwe (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above comments. 100% agree. Spf121188 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHORSERACING, having won three Group One races. Paora (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NSUBJECTs are just a presumption of notability, not proof of notability. They still have to pass GNG and I do not see how this subject does or ever will? Aoziwe (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not have the sourcing to meet GNG. The sports SNGs all explicitly say to actually have an article GNG needs to be met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass GNG. Apart from the article in the references ([13]), I was able to find [14], [15], [16] and [17] all providing significant coverage. I don't think WP:BLP applies whether she is alive or not (as a horse), so I think WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies here. There would likely be more offline sources as well as she was notable long enough ago I think. A7V2 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. A search on "The Knowledge Basket", which has New Zealand newspapers of the period, yields 588 results, which suggests more than merely routine race coverage. Here's some extracts from a story titled "She's no Sunline, but mare exceeds potential" in the Waikato Times of 19 September 2005, page 21:

At Hastings, Miss Potential confirmed her place as the best Kiwi mare since Sunline with her third Gr I win, taking Saturday's Stoney Bridge Stakes at Hastings. It was the icing on the cake of an incredible career in which she has overcome adversity, shown unmatched resilience and courage and maintained a blistering turn of foot. ... And like Sunline, Miss Potential deserves to be remembered as a galloping great.

So i reiterate my previous Keep vote. Paora (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow reactions to the sources raised later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my !vote to keep. Based on research by A7V2 and Paora there is NEXIST to satisfy GNG. Even if only 1% of the 500+ references are good ones there will be enough with the three listed exliclty above to provide in-depth. The 500+ are behind a paywall, so it would be best if A7V2 and Paora could add some more referenced content to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHORSERACING and GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Mattress[edit]

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

Purely an advertising page for the company. Daringsmith (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the advertising as per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They make mattresses, but so do lots of other companies. What's needed is in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage in independent sources about the company, and that's not here. at least yet. Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a short promo blurb for the company more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 13 February 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 (overturned)redirect to Mithridates II of Commagene. This allows editors to decide whether there is something to merge. The one "keep" opinion admits that "the referencing here is terrible and needs to be far better", which is an argument for deletion, not keeping. Sandstein 10:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laodice (wife of Mithridates II of Commagene)[edit]

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

Apparently nonexistent: the source cited here is clear that "Mithridates' wife Laodike", alongside the husband "Mithridates" and relative "Antiochus", are simply people who shared the names of some contemporary royalty, and not royals themselves. She is no "queen", but rather belongs to the "local wealthy leading family" mentioned in the article. Presumably created as result of a misunderstanding. Avilich (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to her husband. Laodice is a credible transliteration of the Greek, but as the article makes clear we know next to nothing of her, only a name. That is not enough for an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if she was a real queen, she may pass WP:NPOL per monarchy system. VocalIndia (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty in this instance is that I kept turning up Laodice VII Thea when looking for this one. Uncle G (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the concept of a non-notable wife and mother of kings seems far fetched, as I gather it does to VocalIndia. Clearly the referencing here is terrible and needs to be far better, but that’s another issue. Moonraker (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a decent search on Google Books, I cannot even confirm that she existed, let alone that she is notable. Besides, we have a guideline that explicitly states that being someone's wife or mother or any kind of relative is not enough to warrant a biography. See WP:INVALIDBIO as well as WP:NOTINHERITED. Surtsicna (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot confirm that Mithridates II's wife even was called Laodice. Can't find any in depth reliable sources to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Though NPOl was mentioned above, being married to a king is not an NPOL criterion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nom has criticised my vote on my talk page. Reading the article it is clear that there is a source for her existence, namely a funerary inscription. On the other hand, we know nothing of her but her name. That is not enough for an article, but might be enough to add something about here (with a redirect) in another article. I therefore maintain my vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, yes, but it doesn't say she was royalty. Avilich (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The funerary inscription cited mentions a Laodice wife of Mithridates, but the Mithridates mentioned in that inscription is a different person to Mithridates II of Commagene, and doesn't have his own wikipedia page. So this article cannot be redirected to the article on the husband of the woman mentioned in the inscription, because such an article does not exist. This article provides no source, and I can find no source, for the claim that the wife of Mithridates II of Commagene was called Laodice. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:13, 14 February 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 01:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Iranians[edit]

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

Proposed in 2013. Not sure it exists, though I did find "The Iranians University, the first e-institute of higher education in Iran" - but that seems to be different. Rathfelder (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 11 February 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 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trustroots[edit]

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

Trivial mentions only for this, usually self generated content or in passing comparison to Couchsurfing.com in articles about the sharing economy. Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG Unbh (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mostly gets passing mentions. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a breakdown of why the references fail NCORP:

This from Nikkei.com doesn't even mention the topic organization, fails CORPDEPTH
This from travelawaits includes a short description of the company in a Top 12 list (defined as "trivial coverage"), fails CORPDEPTH
This from inlander.com is a mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH
This from scmp.com is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH
This is a blog post from one of the founders in 2014, fails WP:RS
This from Traxcn, a website for investors and VCs, has a profile of the company which anyone can edit, fails WP:RS
Finally, this from kp.ru mentions the topic organization along with BeWelcome and provides a generic explanation of a "couchsurfing" service, does not discuss the topic org, fails CORPDEPTH.

Happy to review any other references but I am unable to locate anything that meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for having stopped copy-pasting boilerplate. This comment looks legit.--Geysirhead (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page out of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, because Trustroots is a volunteer-powered non-profit organization for altruism like Wikipedia itself.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:40, 16 February 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 03:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott Ryan[edit]

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

Article does not list any information about this person other than voice acting credits and a one-off alternate name. IMDb only lists 8 credits and no awards, news articles, or any personal details. An online search turned up no further information about this person. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have multiple indepedent of eachother, reliable, 3rd party sources here that lead to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 11 February 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 and I don't see a fourth relist providing one. Star Mississippi 00:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Alanís[edit]

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

In October it was decided that only Olympic medalists are default notable, others need substantial coverage. Alanis lacks substantial coverage. The one source is the deep of super comprehensive source that does not add towards passing GNG. My search for sources came up with a few references to other people named Salvador Alanis but no additional sources on this person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won silver and bronze at other multi-international sporting events, so meets WP:NATH (points 2 and def. point 3). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Lugnuts. 2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*keep represented multi-international sporting events and won... trusted source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranshu28 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC) sock strike JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NATH establishes a presumption of notability, but per WP:NSPORTS athletes are still required to meet WP:GNG, and reviewing the sources at the article this athlete does not meet that requirement. Specifically, they appear to lack any significant coverage, with the closest those references come being with the sentence Salvador Alanís Duque, who with a time of 13.28 meters ranked 15th at the Los Angeles 32 Olympics, was the first to make history for Mexico in El Sol de Mexico and the sentence Mexico was represented in this event through Salvador Alanís Duque with a mark of 13.28 meters to occupy the 15th place, during the Olympic Games of Los Angeles 1932 in ESTO. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lugnuts. Medallist in his respective sporting field, regardless of how well they performed at the Olympics itself, which appears to be the core argument of this AfD nom. Article itself is reasonably sourced for its length, but ofc can be built up further in the future. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV sources have been uncovered, which overrides any arguments of meeting a subguideline of NSPORT since NSPORT itself requires GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article is now a strong stub and it's pretty obvious that the subject had notability in Mexico. The date of death being unknown is a major drawback. Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that the sourcing is unchanged from when I last assessed it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.esto.futbol/183482-tras-84-anos-mexico-con-saltador-triple/		"Mexico was represented in this test by Salvador Alanís Duque with a mark of 13.28 meters to occupy the 15th place, during the 1932 Los Angeles Olympic Games."	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200418104435/https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/al/salvador-alanis-1.html		stats database	✘ No
https://www.elsoldemexico.com.mx/deportes/alberto-alvarez-consigue-un-historico-noveno-lugar-en-salto-triple-189567.html		"Salvador Alanís Duque,quien con una marca de 13.28 metros ocupó el lugar 15 en losOlímpicos de Los Ángeles 32, fue el primero en hacer historiapara México."	✘ No
https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/73458		stats database	✘ No
http://www.athleticsnacac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CAC-Games-III-Athletics-Results-San-Salvador-ESA-17-21MAR1935.pdf	Original event results reported by the event itself	Purely stats	✘ No
https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/35283/mexico-68-news-bulletin-organizing-committee-of-the-games-of-the-xix-olympiad?_lg=en-GB	Bulletin from a committee he was VP of	? can't access the page	✘ No
http://www.codeme.com.mx/descargas/pdf_historia/08_quintadecada.pdf	? Not clear what relationship the org has with Alanís	Mentioned in two places as the "technical director of the CDM"	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more discussion on the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with editors above. No SIGCOV sources, and medal tally information alone doesn't establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

leaning towards keep. GNG is not a pillar of Wikipedia, it only gives some "presumption of notability" (like SNGs) and has its own faults: while it could be an almost perfect notability assessment tool for current/contemporary subjects as well as for anglophone subjects which can benefit from dozens of services like newspaper.com, the lack of online coverage for a Mexican athlete of the 1930s is all but surprising. The subject clearly passes WP:NATH, and while in its original version there was very little to save in its current form the entry is perfectly suitable for an encyclopedia. He was described by El Sol de México as someone who in his discipline "made history for Mexico", something which I consider a sufficient claim of notability, more than the dozens(hundreds) of influencers/youtubers who have a WP entry for barely passing the GNG bar through 2 or 3 articles in some obscure websites. Cavarrone 07:36, 18 February 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 and salt. I've been clerking, but never !voted, so I don't feel this is an involved close, nor is there really a question of the outcome as notability is ot clear and a further relist would likely bring more disruption than sourcing. I am opting not to draftify at the moment given the shenanigans of both editors, however if an established editor such as Necrothesp or Ravenswing would like this to incubate and see if sourcing can be found, I have no objection to doing so. Just ping me. Star Mississippi 20:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pallab Bhattacharyya[edit]

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

Notability concerns have been expressed and creator has chosen to request testing at XfD rather than AfC which may have a slightly lower bar. Not fit for mainspace as is but position(s) may be sufficient to confer notability, though normally such positions will generate RS which are certainly not well leveraged into the article and not suitability wikilinked Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With objection to the AfD/XfD, I want to give my opinion that the subject has the citations to verify the content. And a Director General of Police level officer with the additional charge of the State Intelligence's Chief (tons of citation are always not needed) are enough to pass WP:GNG. State Intelligence is also a SPY AGENCY, hence as other SPY AGENCY's officers don't reveal much about their personal life, it is hard to put vast info about the person. The article should be KEEP. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Arunudoy is the article creator who seems to have self-passed their article out through AfC and who as part of this edit Special:Diff/1069654300 seemed to request/challenge "Nominate for deletion" yet seems to object to the AfD here. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: Requesting for nomination of AfD alawys doesn't mean my vote is to delete the article. I wanted the article for AfD check. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 05:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Onel5969: reviewd the page, I guess, now its passes W:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: as @Onel5969: was the the user to object the wiki entry, he/she reviewed recently without any change, you can now eligibile to withdraw AfD/SfD. -NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Best not presume anything about anybody's braincells, especially if you keep pinging them. NPP tutor say: "Unlike CSDs and PRODs, you can mark AfDed pages as 'reviewed' after tagging them, as their fate will be decided via discussion and they can't fall through the cracks if tags are removed (a bot will restore them so long as the AfD discussion is open).". The the image that was previously here can be correctly sourced it would be eligible, certainly at lower resolution, for upload to the English WikiPedia under fair use criteria. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A Director General of Police level officer is noteable enough. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: A DGP nd Chief of SPPY AGENCY doens't pass WPLGNG? Strangefrom you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:, WP:NPOL isn't applicable here. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone who held the highest possible rank in the Indian police is very clearly notable. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it happens, he neither served in the national police, nor did he have the highest rank in the national police service. He served in the provincial police, and the highest Indian police rank is Director of the Intelligence Bureau. I'm unclear from where you get these erroneous notions. Ravenswing 11:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said he served in the Indian police. As an Indian Police Service officer he did just that. And Director general of police is the highest rank in the IPS. So there is no "erroneous notion" here whatsoever. Director of the Intelligence Bureau is essentially the most senior appointment that can be held by a DGP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I agree that someone who held the highest rank in the Indian Police is notable but this page needs expansion to add additional information beginning with what they did or were involved with whilst serving at any of their positions. For example here, here and here all mention him and could help with creating a couple of sentences on his role.Gusfriend (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: As it stands, the subject does not pass the GNG, and there are no other notability grounds which he meets. I'm not sure where some editors got the notion that the subject led the "Indian" police; his highest position was as head of a provincial police department. No one would claim, for instance, that the head of the Massachusetts State Police was presumptively notable, and there are no notability criteria which claim so. Neither is being a police head detective heading a "spy agency," as the article creator stridently maintains. As far as NeverTry4Me's assertion that a policeman isn't interested in details of his life getting into the press, that may well be -- but the only answer to that is "Then an article on him cannot be sustained," as indeed there are no articles on 25 of the 28 current Indian provincial police chiefs. The GNG doesn't have waivers for whatever putative excuses there are for subjects to lack significant coverage. Ravenswing 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Did anyone say that he led the Indian police? I said he held the highest rank, which he did, as DGP is the highest rank in the IPS. And I would indeed also assert that "the head of the Massachusetts State Police was presumptively notable" per WP:COMMONSENSE! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eeesh. The article detailing IPS ranks says otherwise. As far as "presumptive notability" goes, its very definition means that some notability guideline states so. No notability guidelines on Wikipedia accord presumptive notability to provincial police personnel, and WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't empower you to invent your own rules to suit your own preferences. Ravenswing 17:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which article would that be? IPS, Police ranks and insignia of India and Director general of police all agree that this is the highest rank. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right on the gazetted officers illo of Police ranks and insignia of India. It very clearly lists "Director of intelligence bureau" before "Director general of police," with an augmented shoulder insignia to boot. The Director general of police article does not say "highest rank of police." It says "highest ranking police officer in an Indian State or Union Territory." Kinda hard to miss. Ravenswing 20:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Kinda hard to miss the footnote as well. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        ...which is uncited. Retswerb (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Merely the most senior appointment of DGP, which is the highest rank! Your assertion is like saying the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest rank in the US military, and other admirals and generals therefore only the second highest ranks! But irrelevant anyway, given no guideline says that one is notable and the others are not. It should be blatantly obvious, in my opinion, per WP:COMMONSENSE, that the holders of the highest possible ranks in a national police service of a country the size of India are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        (shrugs) Then go hop over to WP:BIO's talk page and either seek to amend NPOL to include police chiefs, or advocate the creation of a NCIVILSERVANT guideline (because cabinet ministers aren't presumptively notable either), and blessings be upon you. XfD, however, runs on the notability guidelines that exist, not the ones we wish did. Ravenswing 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        "cabinet ministers aren't presumptively notable either". Er, yes they are, per WP:POLITICIAN! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Only in a Westminster-type system, where as a prerequisite to being a minister they are elected parliamentarians; WP:POLITICIAN does not cover appointed officials. Honestly, you seem really heavily invested in "winning" this AfD, which is odd given that other than the now-indeffed article creator, you're the only one advocating keeping it. As it happens, I find nowhere in "common sense" anything defining it as concurring with your personal POV. My take on common sense is that notability guidelines ought to be taken literally, as opposed to what I would wish them to be were I Dictator of Wikipedia. Ravenswing 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be the equivalent of a US State Police head (usually a Colonel), in a state roughly the size of Maine. Unless there are reliable sources to show why this individual has received coverage above and beyond what is routine for a civil servant's hiring, transfers, promotions, etc...then the subject does not meet the notability guide. ValarianB (talk)

I don't think that Maine (or Massachusetts) is a fair comparison. It's population that matters, not area, and Assam has more than 20 times the population of Maine and four times that of Massachusetts. The closest US state in population is Texas. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but the point remains, even the head of the Texas Ranger Division doesn't have a Wikipedia page. ValarianB (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the chiefs of major US police organisations have generally been kept if taken to AfD. And the Texas Ranger Division is only 234 strong! The Texas Highway Patrol would be a closer match, but still not accurate as the police of an Indian state provide most policing in that state, whereas most American policing is on a city or county level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assertion that no sourcing exists to support the subject's notability, and the position itself is inherently not notable. You can continue to travel this minor tangent about state size if you like, but I am done. ValarianB (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the conduct issues have been resolved at ANI, let's try for consensus. I advise participants to be aware of bludgeoning the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing the arguments for "Keep" above, I find them unconvincing. The coverage presented so far is utterly routine for a civil servant and does not significantly cover the subject in any meaningful way. Compare the coverage for this person to that for, say, Cressida Dick. For Dick we have coverage of multiple events and crises that have been part of her tenure. For Bhattacharyya we have little more than teh markers that would allow us to present a resume. There is no support in the GNG or any applicable SNG for the proposition that being a police chief, of any level of any size polity, is inherently notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I see that everyone who is on the side of "DELETE" is just passing their opinion with some demand(if not seeking) SIGCOV about the subject person's personal life. But none noticed that this has focused some on his personal life (spouse, children, etc are not mentioned in the source). Beyond that, the subject person was the chairman of the Assam Public Service Commission, a position that can be held by only an IPS or IAS top rank officers and appointed by the Government, not by a political consensus. Additionally, and, most importantly, the subject person is also a member of the High-Level Committee of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord formed by Ministry of Home Affairs, India, where the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord is the most burning issue related to Assam Movement which is one of the world's biggest Student protest. A government officer who has/had held 3 government positions, appointed by the Government of India, is simply notable as per WP:COMMONSENSE. These facts are being ignored in this discussion and kept beyond focus here. I wonder, why, here are most notions about GNG, where adding too many citations can lead to citation bombing. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 07:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comment about the page for Cressida Dick which is certainly worth aspiring to but in the interim can I suggest that you check out the pages of Simon Overland and Christine Nixon? I am sure that there are a lot of others but they both include more details about what they did during their service.Gusfriend (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about the GNG because that is the only notability criterion pertinent to the discussion. There are no notability guidelines according presumptive notability to any non-elected government civil servant at any level, regardless of the positions he or she can claim, period. Ravenswing 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me:, what in any of this discussion gives you the frankly bizarre idea anyone is asking for personal details of this person's life? No matter what their past or present positions, notability requires coverage that is simply not demonstrated. Neither WP:COMMONSENSE nor some notion of inherent notability are escape causes from this basic requirement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or possibly Delete, if that is a valid combination. I think is should never have been removed from draft. NeverTry4Me, who used to be Arunudoy was desperate to get it into mainspace, and I thought at the time that it wasn't ready for it. I thought and still do, that several months should have been used to build the sources, look for suitable newspaper articles on the subject to strengthen the article. And that could still take place. But Ravenswing's and Eggishorn's are very strong here and a useful indication of its current state. I think it should be drafted. If that is not suitable, delete it. scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - normally, I would have no issue with draftifying, however, due to the article creator's behavior, I do not believe that is a suitable option in this instance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I do not have any objection on Draftify, as I have learned some from this discussion. I will expand, modify with WP:SEC as I am getting some sources through Yahoo, Bing, and Yandex searches than Google. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disruption by sock, article creator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
~~Delete~~ He never occupied the highest rank Director general of police and not specially (writer apart from being a police etc.) notable. In different branches (border, home, crime etc.), there are several police officers with the same rank as Bhattacharyya. Run-of-the-mill case! GeezGod (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — GeezGod (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply] Comment @GeezGod: then what are this, this, and importantly these are about? Per your say Times of India and News18 are biased?? You should check this WP:COMMONSENSE--NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment He was just an ADGP [18]. Check that link, please. So many ADGPs are there for different branches. We don't need separate article for everyone. You can mention them in Assam Police page as official or former official only (that to not needed IMHO). GeezGod (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment @GeezGod: ADG, even after I have given you the sources? My above resource have given his DG rank. Additionaly this, this, this, this supports his DG Rank, regardless of branch of Assam police. Please check citations first, then place your opinion. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] CommentThis is a common mistake made by newspapers. In each state police force, there should be only one DGP. Note: Even special DGPs are equivalent to ADGPs. The current list of key officials is as follows: [19] GeezGod (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment, again you are repeating mistakes in comments. IDENT, please note, IDENT. As per your say, 'common mistakes' by major Indian newspapers? That is not a valid comment. Are you into journalism? If so, then please edit your COIN and improve the articles. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] CommentDon't be defensive. What I mentioned will be understood by other editors. For designation of officials, I urge that you go to official sites. GeezGod (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Per Police ranks in India, I am in opinion that you are missing The IPS ranks. Period. Full stop from me. :)) --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Oh God! His designation as DGP was misquoted in the news over what I said. He was an ADGP and Special DGP with no notable coverage or specialisation. No more comments. I'm tired. GeezGod (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disruption by sock, article creator

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~Delete~~ He never occupied the highest rank Director general of police and not specially (writer apart from being a police etc.) notable. In different branches (border, home, crime etc.), there are several police officers with the same rank as Bhattacharyya. Run-of-the-mill case! GeezGod (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — GeezGod (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

Comment @GeezGod: then what are this, this, and importantly these are about? Per your say Times of India and News18 are biased?? You should check this WP:COMMONSENSE--NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was just an ADGP [18]. Check that link, please. So many ADGPs are there for different branches. We don't need separate article for everyone. You can mention them in Assam Police page as official or former official only (that to not needed IMHO). GeezGod (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GeezGod: ADG, even after I have given you the sources? My above resource have given his DG rank. Additionaly this, this, this, this supports his DG Rank, regardless of branch of Assam police. Please check citations first, then place your opinion. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is a common mistake made by newspapers. In each state police force, there should be only one DGP. Note: Even special DGPs are equivalent to ADGPs. The current list of key officials is as follows:

[19] GeezGod (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, again you are repeating mistakes in comments. IDENT, please note, IDENT. As per your say, 'common mistakes' by major Indian newspapers? That is not a valid comment. Are you into journalism? If so, then please edit your COIN and improve the articles. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDon't be defensive. What I mentioned will be understood by other editors. For designation of officials, I urge that you go to official sites. GeezGod (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Police ranks in India, I am in opinion that you are missing The IPS ranks. Period. Full stop from me. :)) --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh God! His designation as DGP was misquoted in the news over what I said. He was an ADGP and Special DGP with no notable coverage or specialisation. No more comments. I'm tired. GeezGod (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Eggishorn. ––FormalDude talk 03:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tangentially, NeverTry4Me was just indeffed. (This should take draftification off the table, seeing as the article creator won't be around to improve it.) Ravenswing 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to relist on account of that, but I think we have enough days remaining for consensus to develop without being bludgeoned. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Star Mississippi 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi - not sure what re-listing would do, it's pretty clear the two choices are draftify or delete, but since they've been indeffed, not sure what draftify would accomplish. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Optimism is mostly that the block will cover the time remaining here. I was very close to a partial block before it landed at ANI. Star Mississippi 03:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Position itself is inherently not notable. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor Draftify As per above argument. DMySon (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article and discussion has attracted many problems and socks. Assuming the result is not to remain in mainspace I strongly suggest a closer salts and also makes it a requirement any return attempt to mainspace goes via a discussion process such as AfC or DRV; with inappropriate/incompetent DRV's being immediately closed and DRV nom. sanctioned for disruption if appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding as admin who has been monitoring the page and associated disruption and ANI threads. There is no way this sanely ends without salting Star Mississippi 14:11, 18 February 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 multiple results. There's consensus that lists of postal codes are not encyclopedic, but the topic of postal codes in a given country might be. As such I'm deleting all the articles that begin "List of...", and keeping the rest; but if any others remain problematic lists after sufficient opportunity for cleanup, renomination might be appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Egypt[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, following this just-closed AfD [20], I'm listing this article and some others that are either a) just a list of postal codes, or b) just a list of postal codes and a map. asilvering (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are still more, but 15 seems like a sensible limit for bulk AfD for now. -- asilvering (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having just today been checking exactly this sort of information (for France) I think lists of this kind fulfil a purpose and are useful for some users. Athel cb (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all titles that start with List of .. per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Undecided as yet to the remainder, as a few do have merit and can be kept with some truncation. Ajf773 (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. post codes of countries are a notable topic and worthwhile addition to any encyclopedia. We can talk about the history of that countries post code system and it's orgins. The articles can be further developed and there is more than enough room for improvements. Which specific point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is this breaking? Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911 We can of course talk about the history of a country's post code system and its origins! See, for example, Postal codes in Canada, which does just that, and is a Good Article. You will notice that those articles are not anywhere in this list up for deletion. These are simply lists of postal codes. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you nominate List of postal codes of Canada: G and all the other alphabetical lists for Canadian pst codes?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this type of bulk AfD, no. These are all extremely simple listings, or an extremely simple listing and a map, because that's all I think there is explicit consensus for, following the AfD I linked in the nomination. Articles with more substantial connections to other articles weren't up for discussion there. -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep those starting with Postal codes in .... They can be expanded with contents like history, numbering system, etc., i.e. the article scope is not just a simple list. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question: There's one "keep" vote and one "delete" vote that say more or less the same thing: delete the ones called "List of..." and either discuss or keep the ones called "Postal codes of...". I'm happy to remove the "Postal codes of..." articles from this bulk nomination, and I think that since these are bulk noms rather than individual ones, I could just remove the AfD template from the top of the individual "Postal codes of..." articles without breaking anything. Is there any reason not to do that? -- asilvering (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Any potential articles about postal code history would require a full TNT and rewrite. –dlthewave ☎ 13:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any that are just simple lists (which all of the ones I looked at are). There are many online sites and databases that list postal codes already, so I don't see how these are needed in Wikipedia. A simple list is not an encyclopedia entry. Inhabited places with a Wikipedia article could include a section on postal codes - how they are formed, what ranges they cover. But many of the places listed here are not themselves encyclopedic. Lamona (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Postal codes in Thailand does not list individual postal codes, but describes the overall numbering scheme. It's mostly unreferenced though. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the same as List of postal codes in Brazil, I think. Looks less like a list simply because it's better formatted. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the "list of" articles and keep the other ones. Since I think there's potential for there to be encyclopedic articles about the history of postal codes in certain places. Just not in list form and they should be referenced, which these articles don't currently seem to be, but I'm going to assume good faith for now that there are references out there. Although, I encourage the nominator to re-nominate the articles in a few months if nothing useful about the topic materializes. In the meantime though I think the list articles can at least be safely deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Straightforward cases of NOTDIRECTORY/NOTDATABASE. Avilich (talk) 18:09, 14 February 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 03:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carpa Village, Sabang[edit]

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

Notability in question. Note that this is not a barangay, the smallest administrative region in the Philippines. Instead it is located within one, Brgy. Sabang. Google Search just shows typical listings of business located in the area and normal maintenance bulletins such as air scouring performed by the local Baliwag gov't. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Most barangays are not even notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HueMan1. Chompy Ace 15:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this village legally recognized, or is it an informal designation? — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: No, it's not legally recognised. The lowest local government unit in the Philippines is the barangay, and like what I said, most barangays are not notable (there are 42K of them, btw). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:56, 18 February 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 and redirect to The Brat Attack. ✗plicit 03:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave_Zegarac[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dave Zegarac

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

Probably fails WP:BLP, severe problems with WP:RS, subject fails notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or redirect to The Brat Attack. He's in the news right now for getting arrested at one of the trucker protests ([21]), but otherwise comes up in relation to the band. -- asilvering (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - someone more familiar with BLP than me needs to go over this article's history with a fine-tooth comb. There are BLP violations in its edit history that need to be dealt with (wasn't it once WP policy to erase BLP-violating edits from an article history?). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a pretty good argument for why this should be deleted instead of redirected? -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the one who originally nominated this article for deletion. His prominence in the music community was (is) way over-stated, most of his statements were unverifiable and it couldn't be updated. Because, after he was accused (by many people) of sexual assault, his label dumped him and he went into hiding in Newfoundland (he says he started a band there but the only record of it was posted by him). His page was deleted, but I see it's back, and has been completely re-written. All mention of the sexual assault allegations is gone. On the one hand, he was apparently never formally charged; on the other, it's hard to dis-believe, especially today, the statements of dozens and dozens of women. I just took a look at the re-write; 90% of its statements are still unverifiable. He lists a discography, but most of the albums listed were recorded and released by him. And there's no record of them anywhere but on Wikipedia, because he has created separate articles for his own albums (all using the same photo). I don't know why this guy is still on Wikipedia. He's abusing it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of accurate, verifiable and usable information; not a PR and marketing tool for guys with guitars and grudges.--LJA123 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if anyone is concerned about alternatives to deletion, Redirect to Brat Attack. That band is the only one of his many musical endeavors to achieve a small amount of notability, so all reliable info on his career is in relation to that band. Meanwhile, the only other unique thing about him is his criminal record, for which he does have some news coverage, but per WP:CRIME that does not merit a separate article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A criminal and a terrorist should not be allowed to use WP for personal advertising Danorse (talk) 04:58, 14 February 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 03:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Showkat Ali Chowdhary[edit]

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

Civil servant who doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Relatives are slightly more notable but notability is not inherited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz Liz Talk!, I have created this article and to bring this to your notice the article is of a senior Indian Forest Officer from J&K & as of reliable reference I have added to government Website mentioning Showkat Ali Chowdhary & his designation & other details of his postings & I have also added media references from some of the top media houses in mentioning him so I would request you to kindly consider the publication of the my article, because government website are most reliable sources that are considered every where.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basimji zulfkar (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Basimji zulfkar,

I just started this discussion. It's up to other editors who look over the article as well as the discussion closure to determine what happens with this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Most reliable sourcing and significant coverage appears to be about the subject's boss. This is also a clear attempt from a COI editor to avoid scrutiny and get around AfC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Routine news coverage of postings, transfers and administrative actions do not contribute to notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• so what does this change the fact that he is a senior IFS officer & government website cited as reference are not credible for verifying the identity? Think about it Basimji zulfkar 17 February 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senior civil servants are not default notable, so simply being proven to actually exist and have his job doesn't mean that the subject merits an article. GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Old Newingtonians#The diplomatic service. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 03:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gilbert (diplomat)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Gets only 2 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors do not have default notability, and the sourcing here does not rise to the level of showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Old Newingtonians#The diplomatic service. While it is difficult to see how GNG is satisfied, there is carefully researched and referenced encyclopedic content here. The material here could easily be added to the merge target. Aoziwe (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Old Newingtonians#The diplomatic service. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Old Newingtonians#The diplomatic service per nom. Chompy Ace 15:10, 16 February 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.