< February 13	February 15 >

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Award categories[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cluster of poorly sourced articles for various categories of a regional film and television award. All but one of these are sourced exclusively to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, rather than any evidence that the awards get reliable source coverage in WP:GNG-worthy media, and the only one that does cite any outside sources at all just cites a small smattering of community hyperlocals and blogs, alongside what's still mostly the award's own self-published content about itself, and just one proper article in a major daily newspaper that actually verifies all of the winners (but not the nominees) that year. As always, award categories aren't automatically notable just because the presentations are technically verifiable on their own website — the notability test is the reception of third-party coverage in real media, but I've tried to source Leo Awards stuff properly in the past, and it's almost impossible because they just don't consistently get the necessary media coverage. And for added bonus, most of these have not been properly updated in years; only two of them go past 2016 at all, and even one of those stops at 2017, with only Musical Score in a Documentary having been updated all the way to 2021. These awards just aren't highly notable enough to get the comprehensive "standalone category articles" treatment that the Oscars, the Emmys or the Canadian Screen Awards get, because the depth of media coverage necessary to support that just isn't there.
(Also, I struggle to understand why technical craft categories like picture editing and production design in children's television were somehow more important for us to have articles about than topline categories like Best Picture, which nobody has ever created at all, but that's a story for another day.) Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 31 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) 22:07, 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!} 23:44, 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!} 06:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhalikka Yarumillai[edit]

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

An unreleased film that does not meet the requirements of WP:NFF. This source says the shoot was planned to start in February 2019 but no update on production since then. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:21, 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!} 23:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree there seems to be a sense of silence about this film and there aren't much updates about this film. I am the author of this article and I don't mind about the deletion of this article at this rate. Abishe (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable film… Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:23, 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 redirect to Orla Kiely#Personal life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dermott Rowan[edit]

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

This is a page about the husband / business partner of fashion designer Orla Kiely. Rowan's input appears to be entrepreneurial rather than artistic, so WP: CREATIVE doesn't apply. The businesses with which Rowan has been involved are not notable enough to have the their own WP pages: the references are mainly focused on Kiely and her artistic work. In short, I feel the page fails WP:NOTINHERITED. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Orla_Kiely#Personal_life. As noted by the nom, the subject's notability (and the references and the text of the article) all deal with the subject's association with Orla Kiely and Kiely Rowan PLC. Both of which are (as they should be) covered in the Orla Kiely article. This article is otherwise something of a FORK. There is limited (if any) evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria for a standalone article. Under WP:ANYBIO or WP:SIGCOV or similar. (Where there is coverage it is about the subject's association with other topics - like his business/partner). WP:NBUSINESSPERSON also applies. I also note there was an apparent COI/SPA concern arising at the time of the article's creation. Guliolopez (talk) 17:19, 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!} 23:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orla_Kiely#Personal_life per Guliolopez. Ifnord (talk) 18:56, 21 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 on a simple nose count this would seem a "no consensus", none of the "Keep" arguments addressed the assertion that this article fails the GNG. With such an assertion, passing "NFOOTY" is not a relevant argument, and so is discounted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Díaz (Chilean footballer)[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability issues for 9 years, and was last edited in 2020 with little to no changes since. I cannot find evidence of notability for this football player even on Google. ES Wikipedia is a stub as well, with no sourced information to copy over. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a player of the Primera División (the main professional football league in Chile) I think they merit inclusion. I do concur with the thoughts about lack of references, though. ~~I was not able to find any.~~ Díaz seems to be a very obscure player, mostly known as Luis Eugenio Díaz (I suggest renaming the article). I found an article published by the Universidad Católica club which says he scored in a match between that club and Colo Colo, in 1997. That confirms they were in the Primera División and their article should be kept [1] However substantial effort may need to be undertaken in order to improve this article. Bedivere (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Sports SNGs say the subject needs to meet GNG. We do not have enough sources here to meet GNG, so we are obliged to delete the article. Wikipedia is not sportspedia, and we do not keep articles just to make sure we have full roster lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, sources do exist. It's just that it's kind of difficult to find them since they are offline. --Bedivere (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG by a long shot, regardless of meeting NFOOTY per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 172 senior appearances in pro leagues, and a 10+ year career, this AFD is ridiculous.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage provided or identifiable; fails GNG. Further, the article is currently a database entry - due to the only source being a database - so it violates WP:NOTDATABASE and thus needs to be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hundred+ professional caps over many years? Easily meets NSPORTS. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any online coverage (Spanish language or otherwise) that meets WP:GNG. The article is created entirely based on the BDFA.com.ar database entry (and the couple of sentences Bedivere found above: "Luis Díaz estuvo hasta 1999 en la UC, pasó por varios clubes pequeños, el 2002 llegó a Colo Colo pero no se consolidó. Se retiró el 2007 en Puerto Montt."). While WP:NFOOTBALL creates a presumption of notability for this type of article, there are simply insufficient sources available to write the article unless someone has access to offline sources that could support it. Since Díaz played during the internet-era, I'm already skeptical that the offline sources are going to being much more robust than the nearly non-existent online sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY as others have pointed out, likely to have offline and/or non-English sources. NemesisAT (talk) 21:40, 12 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!} 23:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY with over 172 caps in pro leagues and a 10 year plus career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTY (the low bar that it is). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Per WP:NSPORTS, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. NFOOTY is a low bar, but fortunately that issue is partially addressed by the fact that they are still required to meet GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find that quote on WP:NSPORTS NemesisAT (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAQ #2. Although, I thought you were already aware, as you were discussing it with Random Canadian here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. That's a pretty ridiculous FAQ though given it is inconsistent with the guideline itself and with WP:N. It was written in 2013 so got to quesiton whether it still acurately summarises the guideline (both on its own and in relation to WP:N). Personally, I prefer to follow what is written at WP:N, where it clearly states passing either an SNG or GNG is sufficient for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but if you believe that consensus has changed since 2013 I would suggest opening an RFC to change it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The article in its current state doesn't have much, but can be further expanded with text from Spanish Wikipedia and other languages. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Wikipedia article is also a basic stub. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 22 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} 21:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Caazapá, Paraguay[edit]

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

non notable list Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete none of the list items are blue linked, referenced to independent sources, and there's zero evidence that they are discussed in reliable sources as a group or set. So the article clearly fails WP:LISTN. Also, there's prior consensus from other AfDs that lists like this should be deleted. Given all that there clearly isn't a good, guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent use of Wikipedia as a directory. Tessaracter (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.WP:LIST Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless for navigation, non-notable grouping, and fails NOTDIRECTORY. Avilich (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:46, 21 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} 21:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Boquerón, Paraguay[edit]

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

non notable list Jax 0677 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete none of the list items are blue linked, referenced to independent sources, and there's zero evidence that they discussed in reliable sources as a group or set. So the article clearly fails WP:LISTN. Also, there's prior consensus from other AfDs that lists like this should be deleted. Given all that there clearly isn't a good, guideline based reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable schools Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 21 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!} 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brihans Natural Products[edit]

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

There's a lot of PR sources - some explicitly labeled so, others given away by promotional text. Couldn't find anything to pass WP:NCORP. hemantha (brief) 04:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 04:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 04:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per WP:THREE, with these sources: [2], [3], [4], extra: [5]. I had also added a few google book sources ([6], [7]) when I had made improvements to the article last week. The company's finances are also covered in an Economic Times profile: [8]. On the existing aritcle, I don't know if mentions in these market/complaint reports count: [9], [10]. I suggest stubifying it to the reliably sourced material. If the article absolutely needs to be deleted, please draftify it instead. I am happy to take up the challenge of improving it, but I won't be able to hunt for offline sources at the local library or Times of India office for the next several weeks at least. Thanks! 2405:201:1006:E03A:54AD:9797:B968:CB1D (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirements for companies is much more demanding than WP:GNG. None of the links you mention (many are already in the article) pass the requirements of NCORP. For eg, ToI article on an award by a little known society is promotional and does not appear independent (it all started, the uniqueness of these products, established new standards, the most modern way). Business Line and the two Financial Express articles are routine product launch coverage. ET/BI profiles are basically just pro-forma stock pages. I encourage you to read WP:NCORP once carefully. (I also note that your sources aren't quite the ones to pass WP:THREE; none are independent) hemantha (brief) 06:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I vote to draftify, in that case. 2405:201:1006:E03A:A573:938A:59CF:9934 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 08:47, 10 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!} 23:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like HighKing, I am not seeing anything here that is both reliable and passes SIGCOV or such. The company exists, but it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with logics given above. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:29, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Rapaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Rapaka (or Shri Rapaka)

Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain why its subject is notable, and this one does not establish either acting notability or general notability. (There is no special notability guideline for costume design, so that general notability is required.)
- This page was already moved from article space to draft space once, and moved back by its author without even a statement that the reviewer's concerns have been addressed (because they haven't been), so that now a deletion discussion is needed.
- A review of the references shows that there are mostly photographs of the actress, likely in clothing that she has designed for herself, with a lot of verbiage about her beauty, and no significant coverage.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Secondary
1	telegu.samayam.com	Puff piece about subject's costume design	No	No	No
2	telegu.samayam.com	Puff piece about the role played by the actress in a film	No	No	No
3	telegu.samayam.com	About a director and nude shots of the subject	No	No	No
4	telegu.filmibeat.com	Interview with subject	No	No	No
5	telegu.wishesh.com	Mostly another puff piece	No	No	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the source analysis, and would add that this looks like covert spam. --bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gossips, interviews and puff pieces do not meet the requirements of GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 21 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} 21:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Laing[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Gnews reveals mainly namesakes. The article is largely based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS citations show off to a good start but WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Give it five years. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not enough for GNG yet as far as I can see. TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passes neither NPROF nor GNG. --hroest 19:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 21 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. The sourcing is extremely weak, and this is a BLP. No issue if an established editor believes they can improve it in draftspace. Star Mississippi 00:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jubal Fulks[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very mild keep I get two hits in GScholar, one showing he presented at a conference and another where he helped the author of a paper select the music to analyze. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slim to non-existant I'd say. scope_creep^Talk 10:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep reliable sources continue to be added (e.g., recent interview with the Colorado Public Radio, newspaper feature in 1998, etc.), added the violinist-stub to get help improving the article (a good alternative to deletion), numerous connections and references throughout Wiki, online databases and published dissertations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict2021 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a WP:BLP. Interviews are generally primary unless it is a article about a model. They fail WP:BLPPRIMARY. Lets look at the first block of 10 references:

Ref 1: [11] That is non-RS. It is a event listing.

Ref 2: [12] Another event listing. It is non-RS.

Ref 3: [13] Meet the performs. It is a passing mention at best, for a performance listing.

Ref 4: [14] Another event listing. A passing mention. Non-RS.

Ref 5: [15] An annoucement of a concert. Can't be used to establish notability.

Ref 6: [16] Press-release. Non-RS.

Ref 7: [17] Another annoucement. Press-release.

Ref 8: [18] Another scheduled annoucement.

Not a single reference in that first block, prove that he is notable with WP:SECONDARY source. The following was added after I created the Afd.

[19] Looks like a review but is an affiliate article.

[20] This is an event schedule.

[21] Describes another violinst Edward Hardy being taught by Fulks. It is a passing mention at best in two small paragraphs.

The rest is scheduling events refs, dodgy links like IMDB and discogs. It is utterly absurd the amount of work that has went into creating an article with 27 references that is a BLP with one review, to state its a strong keep. A single review is insufficient for a BLP. An it is likely non-RS as its a free magazine and look fringe.scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC) ~~*Strong Keep~~[reply]

Comment After a 2-minute Google search, I found another review and a non-dodgy music source by Classical Archives to add to this article. scope_creep's claim only proves this article is an excellent addition to the Wikipedia community and supports the claim of gathering help by adding more reliable sources about (Nathan) Jubal Fulks (i.e., violinist-stub). I'm not sure if a person/ page who has entries on WorldCat, Virtual International Authority File, and the United States Library of Congress constitutes as Non-notable. Everyone is welcome to improve the order of sources or update its references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict2021 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Benedict2021: You have ready indicated at Strong Keep. You can't do it twice. If you have a review, post the url is the common method, so it can discussed. Entries on worldcat, via and entry in the congress don't cut it, on here. What does count is independent, secondary sources. Reviews count. If you have these, post them up, so they can be reviwed. Talking about sources, doesn't count. Evidence does thought. Please post it up. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Benedict2021: I had to revert the article. Those two references you put were really low quality. One is a blog and one is a musical recording archive site, similar to discogs. Neither constitute a decent ref. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough to pass notability guidelines and I didn't find anything additional. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:32, 21 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!} 22:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restream[edit]

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

No indication of notability, nor reliable sources that say otherwise. The only decent source I found after article cleanup was an Adweek article. Also raises UPE concerns. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient depth-of-coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 21 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!} 07:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Mangeshkar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic of the article lacks notability, and the article itself reads like it was written by a marketing department. There's no reason for this article to exist in its current state. Supertanno (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Supertanno (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The news coverage given is not enough. Should be deleted. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the five references, 2 are deadlinks, 2 are from what appear to be non-reliable blogs, and the other appears to be a PR writeup given that there is a marketing pitch as the end. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:53, 19 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. Canley (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golconda, Tasmania[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; many partial mentions, but no significant coverage. All sources currently provided are primary sources.

It is possible though not certain that it meets WP:GEOLAND, but if it does that only provides a presumption of notability, and in this case that presumption appears to be false. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would we delete a populated place? Populated places are presumed notable, even if they are small. I don't see how this improves Wikipedia. Desertambition (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is surely a joke. The reasons given would apply to many small localities in Australia. I and many others have invested thousands of hours to ensure that these articles contain as much useful information as is contained in the sources available to us. For our readers they serve to flesh out their knowledge and understanding of this vast country, which is surely one of the roles of an encyclopedia. Downsize43 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is all the information that exists on it, then it cannot be kept, as it violates WP:PRIMARY; Do not base an entire article on primary sources. The reader also doesn't benefit from such articles; they would be better off if redirected to a list of localities. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can references 2 and 4 be regarded as primary sources? They are summaries of information in primary sources provided by the Tasmanian Government, therefore secondary in my book. Reference 1 is also a summary of information from the primary sources, the census forms completed by households. Downsize43 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Per above. Why is this even a discussion?? Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close Check TROVE. There seem to be thousands of potential references for the Tasmanian Golconda. The BEFORE done here must have been fundamentally flawed. 49.195.62.183 (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trove gives me a fatal accident in 1893, a cricket match in 1905, and an item about a chapter of a book about a mine in 1881. Hardly encyclopediac and not quite "thousands". Downsize43 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try this search. Possibly more than 7,000? 49.195.44.164 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know why some people rave about Trove while others not so. Where does one find guidance to construct such a query? Downsize43 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking to your talk. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BEFORE? what BEFORE? Also, I agree with Downsize43 on the question of primary sources. The nom's interpretation of WP:PRIMARY here is adrift. Ingratis (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it does pass being legally recognized per GEOLAND as I don't think a place has to be a municipality or district. An official figure from a census seems to pass this and anyway it can be seen from GeoNames that there is also a settlement by this name. Also it has coverage from an independent source about its name origin which I think is also a good indicator of notability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As narrated above by other editors. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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!} 23:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Kennedy, 9th Marquess of Ailsa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO - nobleman from Scotland with no significant coverage.

Source assessment follows.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Charles Mosley, ed. (1999). Burke's Peerage and Baronetage. Burke's Peerage (106 ed.). ISBN 1579580831. Retrieved 20 February 2015.	value not understood	Deprecated self-published peerage website.	value not understood	✘ No
"Ailsa, 9th Marquess of". Who's Who. ukwhoswho.com. Vol. 2016 (November 2015 online ed.). A & C Black, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)	entries are autobiographies submitted and updated by biographees, per website	not WP:REPUTABLE: reputation for lack of factchecking. Inclusion of peers is automatic. See RSP, [Spectator]	value not understood	✘ No
"- Person Page 2565". thepeerage.com.	value not understood	Deprecated self-published peerage website.	value not understood	✘ No
"US tycoon Donald Trump wins battle against a beauty spot wind farm in sight of Culzean Castle and Ailsa championship golf course". Daily Record. 1 May 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2015.	value not understood	value not understood	Passing mention	✘ No
"Maize brings rotation and soil benefits to South Ayrshire farm". Farmers Guardian. 23 January 2014. Archived from the original on 20 February 2015. Retrieved 20 February 2015.	? Hard to tell whether "Farm Focus" was a paid or promotional space	? Nothing found at WP:RSN; specialized press	Mentioned several times, but coverage is not biographical and almost all about the farmland he owns	✘ No
Major Ailsa Craig plans submitted to council	value not understood	value not understood	Passing mention	✘ No
Party-loving Scots laird drops dead in Florida toilet hours before he is due to be guest at Highland Games	value not understood	value not understood	Passing mention	✘ No
The 8th Marquess of Ailsa, The Herald	value not understood	value not understood	Passing mention	✘ 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)).

Pilaz (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have no sourcing that reaches the level of passing GNG per the well constructed table above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions not enough to meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:58, 21 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. The nominator withdrew their nomination in light of new sources, and I am procedurally closing this as a withdraw (I was a keep vote in the discussion). There were no !votes other than keep. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Jones (American football)[edit]

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

A before search only netted me a few article about this individual, and the only independent ones I could find were about him leaving UCLA, and coming back. Never played in NFL it seems, it just feels like this person doesn't satisfy GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn another user built out the article with more references, notability established per others sources. Thanks everyone for your efforts! Spf121188 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm finding some coverage, e.g. [22] from The Los Angeles Times, this, this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, leaning keep. Although not a criterion for SNG, he did win the national Gatorade Player of the Year award, which is one of the highest honors a high school player can receive. That probably factored highly into coverage of his recruiting. There is likely more coverage of that announcement, and finding more information on his time at UCLA and after would be helpful. But, I think the coverage provided above is suitable for passing the GNG, if slightly. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More sources here, here, and here. Lots of more-than-transactional coverage of him transferring, but it seems he just left football. He also had plenty of sources detailing his recruiting. Etzedek24

^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a reasonably common name, so web searches don't "stand out" as easily. I would encourage an enthusiastic editor to draftify and work on the content/sources to be more clear and then re-introduce the article. As it is written, the sources are lacking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Paulmcdonald, I would support this as an alternative. Spf121188 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All involved, I would be happy to expand the article as it is with some of the sources I and others have posted in this thread with no need to draftify. Per WP:NEXISTif we know the sources exist, then there is no need to waste the energy moving it to a draft.Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etzedek24, I would support that too. If you're good with expanding the article with the sources provided here, I'll withdraw and look forward to seeing the expanded version of it. Spf121188 (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: & Etzedek24 I just built out the article a bit if you would like to take a look. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, It looks to be in much better shape (in my opinion,) than before, nicely done! I'll withdraw the nomination. Spf121188 (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the Gatorade National Player of the Year and him winning the award was important enough for ESPN to have a reporter write an article about it instead of a quick writeup from the AP or their own news service. When he returned to the team, Fox Sports wire service had a full page write-up. GPL93 (talk) 21:46, 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} 21:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Heaton[edit]

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

Inadequate independent, in-depth coverage. Tame (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a JSTOR link here mentioning him on Page 3 - I'm not sure how to cite it / work it into the article exactly

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep30807?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=%22Andrew+Heaton%22&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%2522Andrew%2BHeaton%2522%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_phrase_search%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A18a057fac940d9778424fa69a6588ebe&seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donatj (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Donatjm passing mentions are not in-depth coverage. see Wikipedia:What is significant coverage? Tame (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 00:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Fails WP:ANYBIO MaskedSinger (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books appear to be self-published. Many links are not independent. He does write for Reason but that doesn't establish notability. I am perplexed regarding the Los Angeles Press Club awards. The organization looks active, as per its web site, but I don't find much *about* the organization. Its WP article is barely a stub. Lamona (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 21 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 2010 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Sweden. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Holmström[edit]

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

Non notable athlete. no in depth coverage. Tame (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Sweden Fails WP:NRU as she didn't play in a semi-final of a World Cup, and in terms of GNG coverage I can't find anything other that statistical entries. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22, Agree. Tame (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Sweden - agree with Rugbyfan on this one. I've boldly redirected a few others and notified the creator. These should be sent to AfD if the creator objects without providing a claim to notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the people above. I can't find any coverage in Swedish or English beyond routine mentions of her name in presentations of teams she's played on, and a couple of match reports such as this one where her name is mentioned in passing. There is a dancer called Anna Holmstrom – not the same name, but Google treats it as if it were the same, and most hits I get are for her. --bonadea contributions talk 09:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above MaskedSinger (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#Sweden per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 21 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} 21:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DP Bakshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject is mentioned in a couple of sources but most of which are unreliable. Not found any reliable source in my WP:BEFORE Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Although he was a Politburo member of a known political party, there are lack of neutral reliable sources. Pinakpani (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Politburo members only have default notability when they in fact technically run the government. Members of such a group that does not run the goverment as an extention of itself are not default notable, and need to pass GNG, which is not passed with this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable politician fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. DMySon (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No indication of meeting NPOL or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and politburo members of political parties do not qualify for WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 21 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. Sourcing is borderline, coupled with the subject's request. Coffman has done wonderful work for which they have been recognized, but this does not appear to merit an encyclopedia article. NB in the event it matters, I don't believe I've interacted with the subject. Star Mississippi 00:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Coffman[edit]

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

Not convinced this meets the notability standards required by WP:BIO - aside from the few news articles referenced mentioning their Wikipedia editing, all of the searching I've done talks about the professional career of this person (or someone with the same name), and majority of those are primary sources so not able to save the article easily with a rewrite. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notifying K.e.coffman who may wish to express an opinion (I don't believe I'm outing the WP identity since it's in the aish.com reference, in which the editor invites comments to their talk-page; but please rev-del this if you disagree). Elemimele (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wired and Aish articles are lengthy and establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article can be written to include a lot of other information from more independent reliable sources as per WP:BLP, though it is certainly Coffman's choice to whether retain this article or not. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 10:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/	Wired clearly spoke to Coffman before writing the article, but the article itself is independently written with few quotes	per WP:RSP	Lengthy article focusing on subject	✔ Yes
https://boingboing.net/2021/09/12/how-one-woman-took-on-wikipedias-nazi-fancruft.html		Website has multiple editors and contributors	~ Despite the title, the article is more based on Wikipedia itself than Coffman	~ Partial
https://www.aish.com/ci/s/The-One-Woman-Battle-Against-Pro-Nazi-Bias-on-Wikipedia.html		Established, professional-looking website	Lengthy article focusing on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/11/17/world/wikipedia-internet-fake-news/	Only content on Coffman is quotes		Only a couple of quotes from Coffman	✘ 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)).

Delete It is way too much navel gazing to have an article in Wikipedia on someone known only for their actions in editing Wikipedia. We should at least require a slightly larger amount of sources before we create such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only real source is WIRED, but that's insufficient. Boing Boing is based off the WIRED article, while aish.com is an interview. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the aish.com is edited, rather than quotes, so I think it can still count towards establishing notability. NemesisAT (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - except when clearly notable, when an article subject supports deletion, it's typically a good idea to err on that side. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both because the subject prefers it and because it's not really about her but about Wikipedia. See WP:SELF. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 14:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not the worst I've seen, but given that notability is borderline at best, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 20 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. We could do a third relist, but I don't see that changing the (lack of) consensus. Star Mississippi 02:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Pajala municipal election[edit]

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

Not notable small community (under 2,000) election. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "(under 2,000)" is obviously not correct. I've added a little bit to the article. /Julle (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Julie: Pajala has a population of 1,958.[23] The obviously not correct one is you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE: This isn't about Pajala, it's about Pajala Municipality. They are two separate entities, the latter one geographically slightly bigger than Palestine, or more than three times the size of Luxembourg. The article you nominated for deletion tallies more than twice the number of votes you claim would be the total number of inhabitants. /Julle (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Thus my "obviously". My apologies – should have made it more clear why it was obviously wrong. /Julle (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It looks like the elections are every four years, and the article on Elections_in_Sweden has a section on municipal elections linking to the 2002 elections for various municipalities that is marked as needing to be updated. So one of the issues with this article is that it is very much out of date, or at least it's an odd duck since there aren't articles for the subsequent years. I'd recommend to merge this info with Pajala Municipality, which has some election information already and seems to be more up-to-date. Lamona (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if the municipality has 6000 people and not 2000, this is a level of detail which is not for Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could see a case for an article about such a small municipal election if the municipality or the results were notable in some specific way; but they are not. Nwhyte (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see a guideline on what size of election is notable, but article passes under WP:GNG surely. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:49, 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 Fairy chess piece#Leapers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threeleaper[edit]

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

I prodded this five years ago with the concern "All sourcing tied to The Chess Variant Pages, which appears to be an indiscriminate collection of variant chess pieces and provides no evidence of notability. Internet searches suggest that alternative sources do not exist." It was unprodded by Double sharp, asking to "to wait a bit for Ihardlythinkso's stores of material". The subsequent five years have seen a total of three non-substantive edits to the article, and more recent internet searches do not reveal any further reliable sources. Redirecting to fairy chess could be considered. JBL (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Fairy chess piece as a piece used in fairy chess, it should fit in the pieces segment -just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk)- 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC) comment this is the second fairy chess piece page considered for deletion today, is something going on? should we delete the other fairy chess piece pages? -just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk)- 15:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment: what is going on is that something popped up on my watchlist which caused me to look through the history of some articles I had edited 5 years ago, and to notice the circumstances described in the nominations. Probably there are some other fairy chess articles that are reasonable candidates for deletion and some that are not. --JBL (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairy_chess_piece#Leapers per WP:ATD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.TheLongTone (talk) 17:00, 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 redirect to National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville Generals[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSPORT and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. SL93 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject isn't notable and there aren't any sources. Even if sources are found, I still don't think it's worth making an article about. ArdynOfTheAncients — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001) - sources can be easily found, such as this, and that is not a reason to delete. Lack of notability is a concern, and redirect is probably sensible as it is a likely search term. Giant Snowman 19:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: teams can specifically not fail WP:NSPORT, per WP:NTEAM. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV, I only found this one source: https://www.statscrew.com/soccer/roster/t-AIJAG/y-1987 which is merely a statistic. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001) as per GS. Nfitz (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Professional Soccer League (1984-2001), per above comment, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. SPF121188 ^{talk to me} ^contribs 16:48, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 01:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron ghassemi[edit]

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

Looks to be a promo piece with "journalistic" sources of dubious reliability. The first source, USAWire[24], looks to be a press release / PR piece, with the author working for a PR bureau[25]. The second source, LAProgressive[26] isn't any better. The author, "Seja Desai", doesn't seem to exist, and her picture[27] is a cropped part of a generic "Asian beauty" image[28] taken in Iran[29]. The final source, Forbes[30] is nearly identical to the first one, and has no author at all.

Looking for better sources gave me only this, yet another PRwire message. All in all, seems to be someone keen to promote themselves and savvy enough to find places which look at first legitimate but are actually just empty shells, rehashing PR messages. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bit promotional and not close to passing GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere near notable, clearly self-promotional. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim of notability as an influencer is extremely weak and the required in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage in independent sources is lacking. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't show notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And originator of the article Dianarossok has a history of being a paid editor, though has not disclosed being paid for this article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Originator of article part of Fatima.Innovative sock farm. I was going to tag it G5 speedy deletion, but since it's already snowing here, will just leave it to die a normal death. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not show notability. What even is the fifth reference? It's not Forbes, but "Forbes Global News", by "Forbes Global, LLC". I couldn't easily figure out how it was connected to Forbes, or if it was connected at all, but there are no bylines and it seems very shady. Knuthove (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily. This is a borderline hoax. Students aren't notable just by virtue of being a student of any school or profession. Further, this is all paid for spam - as in, not a word of the sources is true because they're pay-for-publications and allow anyone to publish anything with absolutely no vetting. CUPIDICAE💕 16:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - zero third-party [[WP:RS|reliable sources with coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am tagging it for G5 speedy delete. No need for more people to have to read this cruft.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:00, 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 redirect to Bendigo#Sport. Anyone is free to merge any content to the target article if ever. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bendigo and District Cricket Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Time to revisit this after 10 years! Seems to me to be a non-notable localised league/association. A google search only brings up localised sources, nothing too widespread, quite difficult to establish WP:GNG; searches of Trove appear to return WP:ROUTINE coverage, i.e. scorecards and fixture announcements. It fails WP:CRIN via WP:OFFCRIC from my interpretation, as it is not of Grade standard. My main concern is notability, I am struggling to see how this league is notable and how it can be demonstrated by reliable sources. StickyWicket (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bendigo#Sport Not seeing enough for a GNG pass here, and as nom states fails all cricket related guidelines. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bendigo#Sport. The subject is not a club, but an umbrella organisation over several clubs, and is not notable in its own right. The grouping of list of cricket clubs would be useful due weight content in the merge target. For people interested in the cricket administration the title is a possible search term hence redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 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 either Fairy chess piece or Advanced chess. Location can be decided editorially. There is no consensus to delete, nor to keep this as a standalone. Star Mississippi 02:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (chess)[edit]

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

I proposed this article for deletion 5 years ago. Since then, there has been 0 substantive improvement. There is one source in the article, which appears to be an undiscerning aggregator of invented chess variant pieces, and I do not believe other sources exist. Certainly this is not the most notable thing named "Centaur" related to chess: that seems to be either a commercial chessboard computer or the notion described in our article Advanced Chess. As User:DGG suggested when un-prodding, merging to fairy chess could be considered. JBL (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Fairy chess piece as a unnatural chess piece (please inform me if this is incorrect) -just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk)- 14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fairy chess piece. Not significant enough on its own to have a stand alone article, but fairy chess is clearly a notable topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If one goes to fairy chess piece one finds that this is supposed to be a piece from H. G. Albers' 1821 chess variant named Courier-Spiel. But that piece was named the Counsellor/Councillor (Cazaud & Knowlton 2017, pp. 269–270 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCazaudKnowlton2017 (help) Verney 1885, p. 154 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVerney1885 (help)), not the Centaur. It is no wonder that people haven't been able to expand this. It has the wrong title, the wrong description, and even the wrong symbol. Why would we want to merge this when it's wrong in almost every way?
- Cazaux, Jean-Louis; Knowlton, Rick (2017). "Fairy pieces on board". A World of Chess: Its Development and Variations through Centuries and Civilizations. McFarland. ISBN 9780786494279.
- Verney, George Hope (1885). "The Courier-Spiel, H. G. Albers, Lünenburg, 1821". Chess Eccentricities. London: Longmans, Green & Company.
Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is already on the fairy chess page, so i was saying merge because that might have fix the issue, but redirect might work. should i change to redirect? -just a quick reminder,Im really bad at this(talk)- 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This thing is way too obscure for an article. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairy chess piece per WP:ATD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Advanced chess. I don't think Fairy chess piece can be a good redirect target, given Uncle G's point above. XOR'easter (talk) 05:33, 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 13:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Half Life Half Death[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Half Life Half Death

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

Non-notable band which has been totally unsourced for 17 years since its creation in 2005. Does not meet WP:BAND at all. Hiddenstranger (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe if I was in the Philippines I would have a better chances of finding sources for this, but the only thing I got in my WP:BEFORE searches was an AllMusic bio. Such little material that I could not even vote Half Keep Half Delete, just so I could do that while proposing the removal of the prose with citation needed tags at the end. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Half Life Half Death: Full Life Full Death Consequences? Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. All I got are them releasing an album and them having a gig with more successful groups. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 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 OKCupid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Blind Date[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tenuous notability at best. Most references are opinion pieces, cursory reviews or public relations-fueled pieces. The website is written about briefly in the book Dataclysm (where the content on it is self-published), where it is noted that it was only online for a couple of months in 2010 before being shut down again. Together with the terrible sources and the unencyclopedic tone, the subject arguably falls a bit foul of WP:NOTNEWS. If there is any place to discuss this website, it is in the history section of OKCupid, which this platform was later incorporated into. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to OKCupid; the nom's arguments are persuasive. Ravenswing 11:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jeffers, Glenn (2008-09-12). "Crazy Blind Date". Herald News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "This latest in online match-and-meet sites boasts almost instantaneous results. ... The dates require little commitment; they top out at 30 minutes. ... Log in and you're quickly given a choice of date, either solo or double (you can choose both), and day, as early as today if you want. You also choose your city, time of date, neighborhood, form of notification (text or e-mail), type of venue (bar or coffeehouse) and personal preference (men or women)."
2. Goldstein, Meredith (2008-01-15). "The website Crazy Blind Dates give you dates on demand". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2009-12-23. Retrieved 10 July 2009.
  The article notes: "Unlike such sites as Match.com and JDate.com, there's no browsing through pictures or looking for a partner with similar tastes. But that raises a question: Is an insta-date a quality experience? Can it spawn insta-love? We tagged along on some Crazy Blind Dates over the past few weeks."
3. Bachko, Katia (2008-03-13). "A New Net Matchmaker: Crazy Blind Date". The Berkshire Eagle. Columbia News Service. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Called Crazy Blind Date, the recently launched Web site eliminates online profiles and sets up users on blind dates, sometimes in as quickly as a few hours. ... He launched the free site last November, and it now has 10,000 members, who he said have gone on 90,000 blind dates. ... Crazy Blind Date, on the other hand, requires no such sifting through profiles and messaging back and forth. This means users have little time to build up unreasonable expectations that may be dashed to pieces when reality bites."
4. Bercovici, Jeff (2013-01-22). "Crazy Blind Date Not So Blind Anymore, Thanks To Hack". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "Kevin Hjelden, a programmer who goes by the nom de web FryGuy and blogs on a site called Burnt Popcorn, has written a program that turns the digitally scrambled headshots of Crazy Blind Date users back into recognizable portraits. ... Although "Blind" is right there in its name, it's not clear how central that aspect might be to the user experience. The primary purpose of the app, which some 130,000 people have downloaded so far, is to get people to spend less time snooping each other's profiles and more time actually going on low-investment first dates. Knowing what the person you're meeting looks like wouldn't necessarily be an obstacle to that."
5. Bercovici, Jeff (2013-01-15). "Would You Go On a Crazy Blind Date? OK Cupid Thinks So". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "In truth, the most radical part of Crazy Blind Date (whose name and basic concept OK Cupid toyed with in an earlier form more than five years ago) may be the way users are asked to express their satisfaction or lack thereof. After a date's conclusion, the participants are invited to rate each other by purchasing "kudos." Spending a few dollars implies that a date was enjoyable, or at least that one's partner might be a good catch for someone else; spending nothing says you wouldn't want to be set up with someone like that again."
6. Quirk, Mary Beth (2013-01-15). "OKCupid Resurrects "Crazy Blind Date" Service Because You Should Be On A Date Right Now". Consumerist. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "That dating model kinda petered out, perhaps because there weren’t enough users signed up for such craaaazy blind dates. But according to Jeff Bercovici of Forbes, the co-founder of OKCupid is ready to roll again with an updated Crazy Blind Date app."
7. Gerstein, Julie (2013-01-15). "Would You Let OKCupid Set You Up On A Blind Date?". The Frisky. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "If all this is giving you the creeps, well, you’re not alone. The idea of meeting up with a total stranger with so little information (and none of the personal verification a close friend or colleague might provide in a “real world” blind date scenario) sounds incredibly dangerous. And if not dangerous, well, then, sort of a waste of time. As any woman who’s spent any time on the site can attest, women get bombarded with messages from completely inappropriate suitors all the time. Which is to say, most women have very little faith in OKCupid’s powers of accuracy. Plus, you don’t even have to have an OKCupid profile to use the service — which means there’s even less vetting than normal."
8. Filipovic, Jill (2013-02-07). "Three Crazy Blind Dates With OkCupid's New App: Can the internet make blind dating any less painful?". BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The review notes: "And while a dating profile won't alert you to all of a person's potential issues, it can raise some red flags that will help you avoid a real creep. Going on a Crazy Blind Date offers none of that."
9. Moscaritolo, Angela (2013-01-15). "OKCupid Launches 'Crazy Blind Date' App". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "Once the app has found a compatible date, it will send a confirmation to both parties. Here's the catch: the app scrambles up users' photos, so you won't get a good look at the person with whom you're meeting – and they won't get a good look at you. One hour before the scheduled date, Crazy Blind Date will open up an anonymous IM window so you can easily find your date."
10. Wortham, Jenna (2013-01-15). "OkCupid Wants to Send Members on a 'Crazy Blind Date'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "Crazy Blind Date is not a new idea for Mr. Yagan. Back in 2007, he worked on an earlier version of the service that was Web- and text-based. It folded after failing to gain traction. "
11. Coldewey, Devin (2013-01-15). "Want to go on a blind date? OKCupid's new app hooks you up in a hurry". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "There are two problems here. First, if the date went well and you want to go on another one, it seems like you'd want to rate your date poorly so that they don't end up on other dates. Yes, it's dishonest, but all's fair in love and war. Second, kudos cost money. In other words, you have to pay to give your date a good review — so they can go on more dates with other people!"
12. Ngak, Chenda (2013-01-15). "OkCupid launches "Crazy Blind Date" app". CBS News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
13. Netter, Sarah (2008-02-12). "Your Best Bet for Love? Timing". ABC News. Archived from the original on 2008-06-23. Retrieved 10 July 2009.
14. Farr, Christina (2013-01-22). "Why I'm dumping OkCupid's blind dating app". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "It’s a nice idea in theory, but when OkCupid introduced a similar blind dating service in 2007, it was a complete bomb. People weren’t all that comfortable meeting a complete stranger from the Internet with only a name, age, and scrambled photograph to go on."
15. Foxton, Willard (2013-04-03). "28 Dates Later by Willard Foxton: Part Twelve, Crazy Bland Date". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "All you can see about the other person is one sliced up photo of them, and your OK Cupid match percentage. Hence, “Blind Date”. Unfortunately, what adds the “Crazy” is the fact that the match percentage is a somewhat blunt tool, and you know *literally nothing else* about the other person. For an example of how wrong that can go, here’s an example of conversation between two people who are (in theory) 92 per cent matches:"
16. Chafkin, Max (2008-05-01). "Their Online Dating Site was Struggling. Was a blind-date stunt really the answer?". Inc. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article quotes from three experts: Sam Ewen (CEO of Interference), Gary Kremen (founder of Match.com), and Theresia Gouw Ranzetta (general partner at Accel Partners). The quote from Gary Kremen says: "A dating site can succeed only if it attracts a lot of women, and that's the problem with CrazyBlindDate. For any dating site, women, not men, are the customers. Women don't want a crazy blind date; they want safety and security, and they don't want to feel embarrassed. I would take the money they're spending on PR and put it toward affiliate marketing to women. Yagan and Coyne are clearly smart guys: They should start thinking about how to lower the cost of customer acquisition and build a differentiated audience."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crazy Blind Date to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, and there is sustained coverage about the subject in the months after it was established and reestablished which means that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. The subject received international coverage in the New Statesman (link). Numerous journalists tried the Crazy Blind Date app and shared their thoughts about it in their reviews. Some of the journalists' thoughts were very negative. The considerable analysis and coverage is enough to support to a standalone article about the subject. It would be undue weight to merge this material to OkCupid. Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Blind Date participants: Trevor Marron (talk · contribs) and Fences and windows (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Barely any of these sources approach serious, reliable content. Most are either conversational-style opinion pieces, literal dating reviews, or self-evident re-prints of press release materials (e.g. here, or see anything that had the word "launches" in the headline - dead give away). Not a single one of these pieces discusses the subject from a serious, analytical news perspective, so they are the weakest of the weak in terms of secondary sourcing, and quite a few are at least partially based on an interview, so primary. At least half of the platforms are also not perennial reliable sources. The Inc article, a reprint of a Bloomberg Businessweek piece, is the closest to a serious, secondary business piece on the subject, so I make that a count of precisely one halfway decent source. I agree that it should redirect to OKCupid (as per the note by Ravenswing), as the service was launched by and was always a part of OKCupid and so can quite duly sit within an article on that company (where it already is). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"At least half of the platforms are also not perennial reliable sources." – I do not agree with this assessment. Aside from The Frisky (which I am unfamiliar with), all of these sources are reliable sources. "Conversational-style opinion pieces" of journalists' reviews of Crazy Blind Date can be used to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews. I maintain that there is enough material and coverage to support standalone notability and a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews guideline in detail, it also specifically notes how such material "must be handled with great care and diligence" as "many reviews are not independent" and that tech-related reviews are typically "more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel", in line with precisely what I am seeing here with some of the pieces, and certainly examples such as the part-sales pitch, part-interview PCmag article. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any reliably-sourced content to OkCupid#History. It seems like most of the sources provided above relate to OkCupid's acquisition of and subsequent activities as the parent of Crazy Blind Date, so I don't think there is standalone notability to warrant an article. However, there is enough to add to the single sentence about it presented at the target article. Granted, some of the sources aren't the greatest, but selective use of what is presumably reliable without resorting to refbombing looks doable. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per the evidence from Cunard. I understand users on Wikipedia have been skeptical about certain reputable publications having their credibility hijacked by PR conflicts of interest, but can someone tell me what proportion of the sources were PR? The Forbes sources, for example are editorial and written by staff, so WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTOR definitely does not apply. Also, Kinu is kind of wrong in stating the acquisition and its related activities are most of the topic's coverage. There's the reviews Cunard provided plus a Forbes piece of the vision of the site from the individual behind it (and no, it's not an WP:INTERVIEW just because it uses interview quotes, it's a fully written piece with interview quotes here and there) 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% disagree about the Forbes pieces - on is a piece that is clearly based almost solely on an interview with the founder, and the other is an editorial opinion piece referencing that same interview, using the very words "in my interview..." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. A piece written by an independent author, with his own prose of the site, being "based" on an interview (by the fact that it incorporates interview info even if it's paraphrasing or the quotes are interspersed) is not the same thing as a source where the transcript of the interview is the entire page (meaning with no written content from another author), which WP:INTERVIEW prohibits. This part of the essay makes that clear: "At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts." 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I minced my words too much, but that entire article is quite clearly the bare minimum paraphrasing of the input from the subject and extremely primary in nature - there is barely a shred of any secondary analysis at work. Judging by the overall tone of the piece, I would not be surprised if it was paid. But no matter, we clearly just have different editorial standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Cunard. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 14:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OKCupid, as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:44, 22 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oberoi Realty[edit]

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

failks ncorp: the reference are either routine notices or promotional DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really want to call for keeping of this one, but there seems to be some recent coverage of them that I found when googling. Not exactly positive coverage, but coverage. Someone with more India experience should probably look into that coverage an make a determination on whether it will save this article or not. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per DGG. WP:ROUTINE case. - Hatchens (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 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 13:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICE College of Hotel Management and Catering Technology[edit]

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

Only source is college website itself, with no mention outside of college and admission directory websites. Non Notable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as it lacks reliable sourcesPri2000 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as it lacks reliable sources . Pri20006 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While as the proposing editor, I believe that the article does merit delete, these two accounts are extremely similar in name and may be socks of some user. While the SPI is open, kindly ignore these votes.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC) The second account was a sock made by an unrelated user, to hound user:Pri2000. Confirmed unrelated to the original user, and has been banned as a sock of another account. Struck my temporary comment as well as the irregular vote. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking up sources, I mainly find listings and similar named institutions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The Banner talk 12:05, 21 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 13:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Youth University[edit]

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

Article has only one source, which is the University website itself. Searching did not reveal any instance of notability, with no mention by WP:RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If notable sources cannot be found, there is no reason for it to be on Wikipedia. ArdynOfTheAncients — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Nadella[edit]

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

Fails GNG, not a notable person. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named chair at major institution meets WP:PROF point 5. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the below responses, I note they rely on the commentary on the criteria, which are confusingly included in the same page, rather than the criteria themselves. Passes WP:NPROF Criterion 5, even though the commentary on criterion 5 seems to confusingly want to limit that criterion to full professors only, something not present in the actual wording of the SNG. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "commentary" is part of the guideline, not something separate. XOR'easter (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete: he's an associate professor, which means that the named chair doesn't really get us anywhere (per NPROF, "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments"). Google Books and Google Scholar find a handful of citations, but they seem to fall short of what would be need to meet NPROF #1 and/or WP:NAUTHOR. And I can't find any sources – either in the article or from searching – that would amount to a GNG pass. Always glad to reevaluate if there's something I'm missing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The other question mark with applying WP:PROF#C5 here is whether Columbia Theological Seminary is a major institution of higher education and research. The purpose of C5 is a shortcut to identifying people who are at the top of their field; being elevated to a status above and beyond full professor indicates that the scholarly community has recognized their achievements. I note that Asilvering has added some book reviews, which could go towards satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Generally, though, it takes multiple reviews for multiple books apiece to comfortably pass that standard, and with only one single-author book and one co-edited volume (plus a book not yet published), that's harder to argue for. XOR'easter (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, I put those in but the other books are either just recently released or still in the works, so no reviews yet. I was thinking of arguing that there's really no point in deleting this when that third book is going to come out soon (it's a textbook, so I think it's highly likely it will get a number of reviews), but it looks like the publication date on that has been pushed back to the end of this year. Who knows if it will get pushed back again. I think this article will just end up being recreated or undeleted later, but I don't have a good argument for keep either. -- asilvering (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Writing books doesn't qualify for creating articles. For BLP's the author should have significant coverage in media or newspaers or even books that gives complete details about him. I think you need to go through WP:BLP, and WP:GNG. Primary sources should be verifiable. If you go through Google scholar there are many people who wrote books or published many journals like this. That doesn't mean they all can create articles here. The post he held is also not of much significance. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are the relevant notability guidelines for an academic who has written books. Nothing in WP:BLP requires that an author have lengthy biographical profiles in newspapers or books before we can write about them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Since you people have already proved that the person didn't qualify for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. I didn't mention anything about them. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find only a tiny number of citations on GS, even in the low cited field of theology, so WP:Prof#C1 is not passed. As above C5 is not passed either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per the concerns above, we don't have a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the case for WP:PROF#C5 is extremely questionable. It's too soon to say that WP:AUTHOR is met; a second single-author book might clear that threshold, but it won't be out for months, and (knowing how academic book reviews happen) it might not be reviewed for months after that. And even after trimming the copyvio that Earwig detected, the remaining prose still reads like it was copied from somewhere. Starting from scratch when notability is clear would be the best thing for it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:PROF, neither #1 nor #5. --hroest 19:12, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Manon Dubé[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CRIME and WP:EFFECT. Previously deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I have now expanded the article with more sources that includes a news story video which may warrant a keep. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conceding the event has garnered some sporadic coverage over the years, IMO it's not enough to ring the WP:N bell. Beyond which, long term significance appears to be more or less non-existent and almost everything about the death is highly speculative with inadequate RS coverage per WP:DUE. The bottom line is that if this meets our standards for inclusion, we are setting the bar very low indeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Seems now to be enough sources to make this notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but would prefer that the information be combined with other information to create a page about the 3 missing girls who the National Post believes were linked. A page about all 3 together would, I believe have sufficient information and importance for a keep. Gusfriend (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been continuing in-depth coverage in a variety of major publications for nearly half-a-century, with brief mentions only 15 months ago - a Proquest search quickly pops up many more that could be used to WP:REFBOMB. to the already adequately-sourced page. User:Gusfriend suggestion above of having one article for all three girls is probably reasonable - but then it would be a redirect, not a delete! Nfitz (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- yeah this article has good coverage that keeps continuing so lets keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.128.6 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hint of impact on larger events that might make this notable. NOTNEWS; this is just routine crime coverage with an average level of follow-up. Star Garnet (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Routine 40-years of in-depth coverage for a serial killer of children - especially given how rare that child serial-killers are? WP:ROUTINE talks about "routine news coverage of such things as announcements", "Planned coverage of scheduled events,", and "events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences" - not decades of in-depth national coverage of disappearances. Also, this appears to be the very definition of WP:NCRIME! Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely routine. Run of the mill coverage of a child's disappearance, followed by continued appeals from family and friends. Newsworthy, not noteworthy. Re:serial killer, that wouldn't confer notability even if it was substantiated. Star Garnet (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Routine doesn't mean not notable. The World Cup is about as routine as you can get. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Star Garnet (talk). Nothing to see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwhyte (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Gusfriend that a combined article would be better, but that's a reason to move and expand this article, not delete it, in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be better if there were a page on the serial killings to which this could be merged. Is there enough coverage to justify such a page? Mlb96 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wish You Were Here (book). Per Mlb96, and all the others who seem to agree that a combination article would be in order here, the proposed merge article seems to be a good enough vehicle for this purpose, especially since it prevents the creation of an article with an unwieldy title. However, caution should be exercised with this approach, since the above seems to be self-sourced, and also because of WP:COATRACK. On its own though, I am not seeing the SIGCOV necessary to keep this content out of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ADVOCACY territory. StonyBrook (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tragedy lacks a WP:LASTING impact as a standalone event, and merging seems like a good WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:40, 22 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 Steamship Authority#Accidents and incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steamship Authority ransomware attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, this ended up being an entirely non-notable event on a national scale and does fine just being a section on the company article at Steamship_Authority#Accidents_and_incidents EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - doesn't seem to have any particular notability among the numerous such attacks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A one-off event for which everything pertinent (all two sentences of it) is already in the main article. Ravenswing 04:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, news blip with no continuing coverage--Mvqr (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Steamship Authority#Accidents and incidents, no reason for there not to be a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... except that insofar as someone's en route to typing "Steamship Authority ransomware attack," they might just find that, well, just plain "Steamship Authority" is the real target. Ravenswing 08:37, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowepro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 6. Note to participants and closing admin: please read through the arguments presented at the previous AfD first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable range of coverage presented that whilst not mainstream is clearly substantial. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification For me, there was some confusion at the last AfD over whether WP:NCORP applied to a "brand" but after discussion at DRV it became clear to me that a brand is essentially a marketing manifestation of a company or a family of products/services and as such would fall under NCORP. Is this generally accepted or are some editors leaning in a different direction? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm generally opposed to that, but as was noted this one is a bit weird because it *was* a company for a long time. That said, I think the brand easily meets the GNG and probably meets the heightened scrutiny of WP:CORP. I have to do some further research on the sources (which may not happen in time for this AfD, this week is busy) Hobit (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say NCORP applies to brands, but I would support keeping of brand articles if multiple products could individually meet NCORP as well (better to have one article describing the brand + its products than many micro stubs). But no comment yet on if this meets that bar (or normal NCORP). Jumpytoo Talk 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think NCORP applies to brands and clearly there are other editors that feel the same as I do. There's a lot of coverage on Lowepro that I've found since the last AfD. In addition to what I added to the article already, I found this and this. NemesisAT (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you articulate why you don't believe NCORP applies? For me, a brand is essentially "marketing" and is usually synonymous with a company name (but not always) and products (usually). Ta. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Allday, Erin (2001-01-30). "Camera bag maker a picture of health. Sr company leads world in meeting needs of professional photographers". The Press Democrat.
  The article provides 1,056 words about Lowepro. The article notes: "Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro. Lowepro camera bags are sold in more than 60 countries. They have been lugged up Mount Everest and hiked into the Alaskan back country. And most of them came from an unimpressive warehouse on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa. Lowepro is one of the biggest camera bag dealers in the world. Its parent company is based in Toronto, but since the early '90s, all of the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa. ... Lowepro started in 1981 as a division of Lowe Alpine Systems, an outdoor-gear maker in Colorado. That company was started by three brothers who were outdoor enthusiasts."
2. Lee, Marc (2003-09-05). "Get in gear". The Dallas Morning News.
  The article provides 220 words of coverage about Lowepro. The article notes: "Backpackers and nature photographers have relied on Lowepro's versatile and rugged camera-bag systems for 30 years. The packs' hooks, loops and malleable partitions make them adaptable to any trip, and their nearly bulletproof nylon skins and cushioned compartments are both protective and lightweight - perfect for the trail or mountaintop."
3. Dunn, James (2016-03-28). "Petaluma's Lowepro seeks sales boost with drone carrier". North Bay Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "Lowepro was originally part of a company founded in about 1967 by Colorado-based Greg Lowe, whose innovations included internal-frame backpacks. That part of the company became Lowe Alpine, owned by U.K.-based Equip Outdoor Technologies Holdings, which also has the Rab brand of outdoor clothing and sleeping bags, founded by British mountaineer Rab Carrington. Lowepro is owned by DayMen Canada Acquisition ULC, based in Luxembourg, with an office in Toronto. The company's main products were originally designed for professional photographers, but Lowepro is expanding to build packs for drones, students and travelers."
4. I consider a brand to be a set of products. The brand Lowepro has received significant coverage through numerous product reviews so meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services.
  Reviews of Lowepro products that make up the Lowepro brand:
  1. Little, Jacob (2021-11-02). "LowePro Photosport Outdoor backpack 24L review". Space.com. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  2. Simon, Erin (2015-06-11). "Lowepro Tropolis 1300 Notebook Computer Backpack". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  3. "Lowepro Versapack 200 AW Photo Backpack". PCMag. 2010-04-27. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  4. "Lowepro Magnum 650 Photo-Laptop Bag". PCMag. 2010-04-27. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  5. "Lowepro Messenger Factor M". PCMag. 2009-12-22. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  6. Grigonis, Hillary K. (2017-10-10). "Lowepro Flipside AW 400 II Review". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  7. Grigonis, Hillary K. (2018-06-12). "Lowepro shelves the traditional camera backpack design in favor of versatility". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  8. Grigonis, Hillary K. (2017-09-05). "Ditch the briefcase with the Lowepro Urbex backpack with custom compartments". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  9. Grigonis, Hillary K. (2017-07-18). "Laptop sleeve, or backpack? The $30 Lowepro SleevePack is both". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  10. Grigonis, Hillary K. (2016-09-20). "Lowepro unveils a rugged quick-access backpack and lightweight airport roller". Digital Trends. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  11. Geisler, Zennith (2008-05-12). "Lowepro Tasca 10 review:". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  12. "Lowepro Vertex 200 AW Backpack review". CNET. 2007-10-25. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  13. Goldman, Joshua (2016-02-06). "This compact bag puts your entire office -- and a change of clothes -- on your back (pictures): Lowepro's Ridgeline Pro BP 300 AW handled a cross-country flight and the slog of a weeklong convention". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  14. Savvides, Lexy (2011-01-24). "Lowepro Passport Sling review". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  15. "Lowepro Clips 140 review". CNET. 2007-10-08. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  16. Savvides, Lexy (2011-03-06). "Lowepro Nova 160 AW review". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  17. Savvides, Lexy (2008-09-29). "Lowepro Luxe camera bags for the ladies". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  18. Grunin, Lori (2008-03-25). "Lowepro Fastpack 250 review". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  19. Grunin, Lori (2008-02-28). "Lowepro Fastpack 100 review". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  20. Fitzgerald, Matthew (2009-11-09). "Lowepro unbags latest all-weather camera cases". CNET. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  21. "Lowepro Cirrus TLZ 25 review". CNET. 2007-10-09. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  22. "Lowepro S&F Technical Vest review: Lightweight customisable vest aimed at sports and press photographers". TechRadar. 2012-02-24. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  23. Davies, Amy (2011-08-15). "Lowepro introduces compact system camera bags: Range specifically designed for new breed of cameras". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  24. Carter, Jamie (2019-06-04). "Lowepro ProTactic BP 350 AW II backpack review: Versatile and endlessly customisable, this specialised, modular backpack is perfect for travel and outdoors". Digital Camera World. Future US. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  25. Mold, Dan (2021-10-06). "Lowepro launches four new eco-friendly photo backpacks for the great outdoors". Digital Camera World. Future US. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  26. Lane, Terry (2008-07-10). "Review: Lowepro Mini Trekker". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
  27. Scoblete, Greg (November 2015). "Lowepro Slingshot Edge". Photo District News. Vol. 35, no. 11. p. 32. ISSN 1045-8158. EBSCOhost 110078603.
  28. Root, Josh (July 2013). "Lowepro Flipside Sport 20L AW". Photo District News. Vol. 33, no. 7. p. 79. ISSN 1045-8158. EBSCOhost 88004971.
  29. Scoblete, Greg (September 2018). "LowePro FreeLine BP 350 AW". Photo District News. Vol. 38, no. 9. p. 19. ISSN 1045-8158. EBSCOhost 131202641.
  30. Schloss, David (June 2006). "Lowepro DryZone Rover". Photo District News. Vol. 26, no. 6. pp. 82–84. ISSN 1045-8158. EBSCOhost 21213987.
  31. Scoblete, Greg (June 2015). "LowePro Echelon". Photo District News. Vol. 35, no. 6. p. 22. ISSN 1045-8158. EBSCOhost 102649856.
  32. Havlik, Dan (May 2008). "Lowepro Fastpack 350". Photo District News. Vol. 28, no. 5. pp. 209–210. ISSN 1045-8158. EBSCOhost 32021269.
  33. Havlik, Dan (April 2014). "Lowepro DryZone Duffle 20L". Photo District News. Vol. 32, no. 34. p. 24. ISSN 1045-8158. EBSCOhost 94815770.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lowepro to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:05, 21 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 00:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TAS5500[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD as it was de-PROD'd in 2020 with the rationale "take to AfD". No improvement made at the time or since. Frankly I have been unable to confirm that this even exists, as I have not found even trivial mentions of it on a search (and neither did the original PROD proposer). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Bundling the following as they are all similarly unverified and were created by the same editor:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, if any does exist it would belong in a list article at most. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also worthwhile to look at TAS5570 and TAS5690 and Type_82_truck from Category:Military vehicles of the People's Republic of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs)

Oh yeah, I'll bundle those. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, all not notable. Cavalryman (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all All four articles fail WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:NOTDATABASE, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because a vehicle exists, whether it be land, sea, air, civilian or military, does not mean it merits an article on Wikipedia. The best I could find on these vehicles where some database entries that absolutely do not go towards it passing the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alvaldi. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question -- Is there scope for merging all these into one article? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all A search only pulls up Wikipedia mirrors and an unrelated measuring instrument which arguably comes closer to meeting notability than this vehicle. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:59, 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.