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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Failla[edit]

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

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

There's very little to indicate notability. There is no substantive RS coverage of this person. There is some borderline RS coverage of minor incidents that Failla was mentioned in, but nothing substantive to build a Wikipedia article on. Most of the content is sourced to primary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete Seems to fail WP:BIO but his "snakes in a cab" pranks got some good coverage which may beat the notability threshold. GoldMiner24 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per non fails to meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WexfordUK (talk • contribs) 19:32, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Castle of Love[edit]

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

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

Article is lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF, this should be in draft space until appropriate coverage is found BOVINEBOY2008 22:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not finding much apart from the one link to the Standard that's there. Possible merge to Lord Egerton Castle, though given the paucity of information I'd have verifiability concerns. Artw (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd recommend a redirect and merge as well. The film does seem to exist per this source, so this would be more of a one line mention at best. On a side note, I kind of want to try and improve the article on the house and person - the story is kind of fascinating. I don't know when I'd be able to get to it, so anyone who wants to try and improve it themselves should feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. I don't see significant enough coverage on this film to warrant an article. GoldMiner24 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The film itself lacks sources supporting that WP:NFILM is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 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 merge to History of United States cricket. ✗plicit 00:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Cricket[edit]

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

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

Non-notable tournament which fails WP:NCRIC via WP:OFFCRIC. There is very little coverage I can find from this one event. 18 years on, there is no WP:LASTING effect from this tournament, so fails WP:EVENT. Wider WP:GNG not really satisfied either. StickyWicket (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this page in 2004 when Pro Cricket was in progress, and at the time it seemed like it might be a breakthrough cricket tournament in the USA. History has turned out differently though. The development of cricket in the USA has a long and tortuous history, with several failed attempts to establish tournaments, as well as a contentious series of disagreements between the International Cricket Council and various groups aiming to be the official (ICC sanctioned) governing body of US cricket, plus rival groups setting up non-ICC-sanctioned events, and accusations of mismanagement. As an aficionado of cricket history, I believe that Pro Cricket has a place in the story - at least it managed to hold some games and attract some world class players.

I don't dispute that in the long run it probably has close to zero lasting impact, and the page should probably be deleted. Pragmatically, I think the material would be better condensed and used to slightly expand the entry in History of United States cricket, particularly to include details of the organising company and their lack of affiliation with the ICC. (I may do this myself in the next few days, but am busy right now.) - dmmaus (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree with User:Dmmaus that Pro Cricket has a significant place in history but perhaps not enough to warrant it's own article. It should be added as a section to History of United States cricket. GoldMiner24 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wouldn't object to parts of it being incorporated into the History of United States cricket article, but disagree that it has a significant place in the history [of cricket]; there's certainly no lasting impact from this tournament. StickyWicket (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems to be a sensible idea. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries Shopping Centre, Washington[edit]

Galleries Shopping Centre, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Topic does not meet notability requirements. Insufficient independent secondary references through Google & Bing. No results in Google scholar. Minimal coverage in press. GeekBurst (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added additional information and references. There's more than enough here to meet WP:GNG, and plenty of results in Google News. NemesisAT (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per added sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 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 merge to Center for Inquiry. ✗plicit 00:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society[edit]

Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Ibn Warraq or Center for Inquiry. There are almost nil reliable sources on the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Center for Inquiry. It appears to have been quite dormant since it merged with CFI, and although widely attested in its early years, information about it can well be explained within the CFI article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "and although widely attested in its early years" - References are needed. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge per nom - non-notable or at best fringe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Bower[edit]

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

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

A recent post at BLPN brought me to the article. Reviewing the existing sources, I'm not convinced that this person is notable independently from the bands they have played in - searches for sources brought me a few interviews, but nothing secondary, reliable and substantial about the person. The search was slightly complicated by the existence of other people of this name, but I'd be happy to withdraw if good sources are uncovered. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He seems to have done lots of stuff, but there is not much independently about him. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I haven't found any sources that indicate the subject being notable enough for a standalone article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. possibly might meet WP:MUSICBIO, but can't tell as there are not enough citations or info available.MartinWilder (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / Redirect / Improve? There's discussion on the talk page for this deletion (probably meant for here). The current problem could be resolved by finding enough sources that cover the subject in specific detail ("not it"). Seems like the dude's paid his dues. So if not, I think WP could be better served by a redirect (to what, exactly?) than with an outright deletion. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WexfordUK (talk • contribs) 19:32, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Owens[edit]

Robert M. Owens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sourced almost exclusively by primary and non-reliable sources. WP:BEFORE search failed to produce any sourcing that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom: fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 22:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find no substantial independent sources, although some of the articles from The Vindicator are dead links. I did find the Vindicator article for ref #6 and it spoke only of an issue related to him claiming to be an Independent based on past voting. I also find that the detail around the lawsuit against him is WP:UNDUE. Lamona (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and there isn't anything that indicates that the subject is notable outside of his campaign, which itself does not appear to be particularly notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Mullan[edit]

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

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

Mullan is a local actor from Canada. The present sources are primary Tumblr. sources, blogs and IMDb. The awards listed are not necessarily relevant ("Mullan won a Coast Best of Awards bronze medal for the hit production Sissydude, A Dandy Rock Musical. Mullan was a runner up for best Poutine") and the page had a lot of vanities and/or vandalism.[1] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of reliable sources that show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no reliable sources sufficient to meet the GNG can be found, and I see no indication that any relevant SNG is met. There's nothing here that amounts to notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:33, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osama F5 Boxer[edit]

Osama F5 Boxer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

More than likely self promotion. My before search only found the subject's social media accounts. Fails WP:GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 19:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only sources appear to be Facebook or YouTube; doesn't meet WP:GNG. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NBOX. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly not notable as a boxer. More importantly, there appears to be a lack of coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Youtube videos are not sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meet neither GNG or NBOX. Promotional article by COI/UPE editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams (writer)[edit]

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

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

This page is about a subject that is not notable, and appears to be either self-created or maintained by the subject herself. A google search turned up few reliable resources besides the writer's own publicity. This violates policies including WP:GNG, WP:PROMOTION

The subject writes computer manuals. Her main claim to notability is in the sentence "Through her writing, teaching, and seminars, ... [Williams] has influenced an entire generation of computer users in the areas of design, typography, desktop publishing, the World Wide Web, and the Macintosh." But this quote is merely a blurb on the back of one of her books. Most of the citations are to works of the author herself. See notability guidance under WP:AUTHOR.

Her other claim to fame is a book she wrote in the genre of the fringe theory of Shakespeare authorship denial. A summary of that section of the page could be incorporated in the extensive Shakespeare authorship question page, under the list of alternative candidates. The note of her book could be used there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomagosh (talk • contribs) 18:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a bit of a slog to search for sources due to the much more famous Robin Williams, but I have been able to add reviews and commentary, as well as information from Publishers Weekly about two of her many books being bestsellers in 2000, so it looks like there is support for WP:AUTHOR notability due to her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every source in the article traces back to her own claims and works. If she were notable, it would be easy to find reliable sources written by someone other than herself. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep nothing but self directed sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment After I accessed the Wikipedia Library, I added more book reviews and articles about her, from additional scholarly journals and news outlets. Her book about Shakespeare appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, and while I have only so far searched with her name and the titles of two of her many works, I found reviews for a variety of her works. All of the additions are independent WP:SECONDARY sources that support WP:AUTHOR notability because she has created and co-created a significant collective body of work, based on multiple independent periodical articles and reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The big question about her work isn't whether it's voluminous, but whether it's "significant." Having a lot of works, or having ones that have sold a lot of copies, doesn't necessarily indicate that the writer is notable. So for instance, the criteria for WP:AUTHOR states: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Having a couple reviews in a specialized periodical does not meet that criterion. It appears that Ms. Williams is a technical writer (and I presume a very good one.) That doesn't make her notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'd also note that Ms. Williams personally edited the page on a number of occasions, which to me indicates that this is WP:PROMOTION. Despite the positive contributions of Beccaynr, I still think this page is about an insufficiently notable individual. --Bomagosh (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Periodicals reviewing and discussing her and her work that are in the article include The New York Times (1998)^[1], The Sante Fe New Mexican (2007)^[2] (and in 2006)^[3], Ms. (2013)^[4], Newsweek (2004)^[5], and The Washington Times (2006).^[6] Scholarly reviews and discussion of her work includes The Oxfordian (2006)^[7] (2019),^[8] Sidney Journal (2006),^[9] Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine (2003),^[10] Technical Communication (1994)^[11] (2001)^[12] (2002)^[13] (2005).^[14] There are also trade publications, i.e. District Administration (2003)^[15] (2008),^[16] Library Journal (2000),^[17] Publishers Weekly (2000),^[18] and reviews from industry publications, i.e. MacUser (1993)^[19] and Tidbits (1992)^[20] (1994)^[21] (1996).^[22] And this is just a start based on a limited search online and at the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'm sorry, that list doesn't really help much. Most of these are merely book reviews, and fairly brief ones, about her computer textbooks. They talk about the popularity of some of her books, but this is a biographical article about her personally. None of those are "primary subjects of notable works" or any further analysis. The articles in the Oxfordian are questionable as WP:RS, since the Oxfordian is a journal that explicitly is dedicated to promotion of a fringe theory. I don't doubt that there are numerous reviews for Williams's books, but the quantity does not necessarily make her notable, at least as I read the relevant WP standards. Other articles you identified look more like a local paper printing an article based on a press release announcing Williams speaking, with no analysis of her claims. Bomagosh (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The beginning of my search on ProQuest shows additional reviews and articles focused on her, her biography, and her career, in addition to the other reviews and sources that also support her WP:BASIC notability, e.g. Albuquerque Journal (2001),^[23], The New York Times (1990),^[24] The Wall Street Journal (1993),^[25] MacUser (1990).^[26] The Santa Fe New Mexican (2002, describing her as "a cult hero in Mac computer circles")^[27] and The Globe and Mail (2004).^[28] And this is only a start, because I only used one of the titles of her works as a search term in addition to her name, and did not get through the first page of results. Beccaynr (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC) As I continue in my ProQuest search, there is also a review from Macworld (1991),^[29] more New York Times articles (1993, not a full review like many of the other full reviews listed below, but stating in a paragraph, "Arguably the best introduction to the Macintosh has been issued in a third edition. "The Little Mac Book," by Robin Williams (Peachpit Press; $16), should be bought when you buy a Macintosh...")^[30] (1993, same, stating in a graf "And if you can afford only one computer dictionary, give serious consideration to the refreshingly titled "Jargon," by Robin Williams, with Steve Cummings..."),^[31] (1995, with more focus on her and a new book, "Robin Williams has finally gone off the wall. Not the actor and comedian, who was always professionally off the wall, but the author of such computer classics as "The Little Mac Book" and "The Non-Designer's Design Book." Her "A Blip in the Continuum" ...).^[32] There is also coverage of her internet cafe I have not yet included, and this 2005 Albuquerque Journal article^[33] offers more biographical and career information, even though the WP:AUTHOR guideline does not require it, as well as further support for the significance of her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC) And the start of my ProQuest search related to The Non-Designer's Design Book has yielded a variety of reviews, e.g.^{[34][35][36][37][38]} so it appears she has at least several works with WP:NBOOK notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bomagosh Reviews DO count for WP:NBOOK. It's even in the part you quoted. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#3 as the creator of a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". pburka (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Where is Carri Hammett's Wikipedia page, then? There's a million other people with such "notability." Tom Reedy (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My online search for author Carri Hammett finds a blog book review, a blog interview and an ARTNews capsule review, and on the WP Library, a few Library Journal reviews of her books about knitting. I did not find other periodicals or scholarly journals discussing her work, or articles about her. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Beccaynr (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Beccaynr (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Beccaynr has clearly demonstrated a WP:NAUTHOR pass here, and there's obviously way more out there. I don't think this kind of writing is exactly what WP:NAUTHOR has in mind, but there's so much of it, with so many reviews, and with the additional biographical material. This isn't going to be an easy article to tidy up, but if there's a good-faith argument for deletion to be made in the face of all this press coverage I have no idea what it would look like. It's clearly possible to write a reasonably complete article about her and her work without going into original research. -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep– per this conversation, the article meets WP:GNG, and WP:NAUTHOR. Reminder, not to be Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But the article needs cleanup: 1) the unsourced info needs to be removed 2) minor or less reliable sources need to be removed where a single source suffices. I also think that it would be best NOT to link to aggregators like gale/ebsco in references. If you can't link to the open access article then a citation with no link is probably preferable. But that's just my preference - I don't know if there's a proper policy for that. Lamona (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that in most bios the main thrust is about what the person has DONE beyond just being a person. For writers, their written output, and the reception of it, is what they have DONE. That doesn't make it less of a BLP.Lamona (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Gale and JSTOR links to make future editing a little easier for anyone with access - WP warns/blocks some attempts to add proxy urls so those are not added but can be retrieved from the databases noted in the citation. Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC) And the citations could be updated to add via=Gale and via=JSTOR etc to make them reader-friendlier. Beccaynr (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this seems like a WP:HEY situation, and the presented counterarguments to Beccanyr's references seem overly technical, i.e. wikilawyering. Geschichte (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only academic attention to Sweet Swan of Avon is the review by Waller, who is less than impressed. But overall, I think WP:AUTHOR is met, and we're better off explaining why the book was found unpersuasive. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:NAUTHOR, a person is presumed notable if their work has been the subject of multiple periodical articles or reviews. I think we should hold the computer books to a high standard (as they are of somewhat passing interest due to the rapid evolution of technology), but the steady output of books and reviews over a number of years seems convincing to me. The Shakespeare book also received a fair bit of attention, and helps support. It is likely that we should indicate more clearly in the article that the Shakespeare theory is fringe-y, although I'm not sure of the best way to do that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The review XOR'easter points out in the comment above is probably the way to do that. -- asilvering (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I opened a somewhat-related discussion on the article Talk page that might help develop this in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. The Little Mac Book really is a classic as well. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, works well known ie. still held by 100s of libraries - The non-designer's presentation book, The little Mac book just to name a couple, lots of reviews as brought out by Beccaynr above, btw nominator's remark in a reply of "Having a couple reviews in a specialized periodical does not meet that criterion." is just plain wrong. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 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 per strong consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Jain[edit]

Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Lack of Notability according to several reasons top of which are WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I haven't see any Independent secondary reliable source that talk about him such as Bloomberg New, CNBC, Business Insiders, etc. To me he fail notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak Makarfi (talk • contribs) 6 February 2022 (UTC)— Ak Makarfi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note that this AFD was not transcluded until 16 February 2022. SpinningSpark 18:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Makarfi]]^(T) 12:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A Google search will generate a great deal of sources with brief mentions only. The details of initiatives such as the Xprize Foundation seem to carry more weight. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of source that feature him. But his company and other companies he associated with are quite notable and that doesn't establish notability, so he fails WP:SIGCOV. Delete it

Abukakata05‬ (talk 4:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Abukakata05‬ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SNOW. The article has multiple, independent, reliable sources documenting multiple events in Jain's life that have significant coverage in those sources. None of the sources have been contested by anyone. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just so it's clear I'm not simply repeating comments from the previous AfD: The article failed deletion criteria previously, and it has since been substantially changed, carefully reviewed, and even put up for GA evaluation Talk:Naveen Jain/GA1. Notability had been met many times over at the last AfD, and Jain has received significant additional coverage since for his new endeavors. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SNOW. Most of the information in this article really belongs the company articles for InfoSpace, Intelius or Freei. Google search result doesn't signify anything about him and no coverage at whole. Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist ( talk) 12:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment. Hey, what in the FUCK is happening? Gotta remember to be WP:CIVIL. For starters, any discussion where both Keep and Delete !votes are citing WP:SNOW is a discussion where a SNOW closure would be LEAST appropriate. For seconds, both of the preceding comments are cut-and-pastes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain. Somebody open an SPI and make sure to ping and throw the popcorn, because this is gonna be some good stuff, I imagine. Edit: Hipal and Ronz are WP:LEGITSOCK, and the maker of the second comment is blocked since 2015, so it's joe-y and job-y but not SPI-y. (1. I need to stop accusing people of random nonsense. Someone throw a trout and/or boomerang my way. 2. I filed an SPI anyway. If I'm wasting their time, they'll tell me as such.) No popcorn today I'm afraid, lads. casualdejekyll 23:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've tagged the SPA accounts. I think it safe to assume paid editing yet again. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Without going beyond the first few references I saw 2 (Seattle Time and Inc.) that are substantial articles about him. Lamona (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SNOW and per reasons provided by trust I'm Bio...., which I don't have to say it over again, with all such reference might look worth inclusion as an encyclopedic article, but all talking about the company. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 07:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anasskoko: No reasons have been provided. The SPAs are simply repeating comments from the previous Afd with no apparent recognition of the current state of the article. This is not a vote. If you can't provide rationale, you're wasting everyone's time. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some people really need to read what WP:SNOW actually is... because none of you are using it correctly casualdejekyll 19:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't why Hipal and his friend are busy castigating people here that comment delete. He tagged me in suspected purpete which I'm obviously have no connection with any one but time will tell us. The methodology of their behavior is a real indication that are paid to depend this article. I see no reason why they will be castigating those that comment delete and is clearly indication that they are connected with owner of the article or they paid to depend. Hipal has participated in the previous Afd and the recent Afd which is a clear indication he has connection or UPE. I'm sure the judge will not consider your thought of castigating editors. I remain bless with all editors Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist ( talk) 20:09, 18 February 2022

  I don't know how you managed to do it, but this comment breaks my installation of Convenient Discussions on this page and I can't figure out how to fix it. So manual comment here. I honestly have no idea what a "purpete" is supposed to be, but despite claiming to be a Biotechnologist all your edits are to financial articles, which is a little suspicious. The single-purpose account tag was added to document that. casualdejekyll 21:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WAIT. Did you just accuse me of paid editing? Have you.. even looked at my contributions? That's almost a personal attack. casualdejekyll 21:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't take the bait. The COI and PAID editing around this article tends to get uncivil with a strong focus away from policy toward editors. --Hipal (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. Fair point. I personally can't find any egregious violations of anything here. The user is obviously not a Biotechnologist at MIT, as they claim to be, but I don't think there's anything worth reporting there besides deleting the page they claimed that on, which I tagged and some admin did. casualdejekyll 23:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the references used are not independent secondary reliable sources if you check it well. Again, the biography is mostly about the companies he worked and co-foundered rather than himself (Naveen Jain). So, the article misses biographical notability.Katobara (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Katobara. Welcome to Wikipedia. That's not the notability criteria at all. The article received a GA review. Any notability problems would have been identified then, but they weren't. --Hipal (talk) 02:54, 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 keep. Consensus reached that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Atkins (American football)[edit]

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

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

Notability doesn't seem to be established for this player. There might be some coverage in certain publications, but a BEFORE search doesn't bring much up. Seems like it won't meet GNG Spf121188 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, found with a quick search: [2] [3] [4] and [5]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to BeanieFan11. I still feel like a player like this should have continued coverage, outside of more local publications and the time period that he played. To me, this feels like it still doesn't meet GNG, to be honest. Not that I don't appreciate your input and searches, because I certainly do! This one just doesn't seem like it should have its own article space. Spf121188 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but there is no guideline that I know of that excludes local coverage and I read in WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. BTW, I found a full page-length article on Atkins that was published in 2001, about a decade after his football career ended. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. I posted the PROD and opened this only because WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY also reads While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. It just seemed like a discussion here was necessary. But again, I do appreciate your searches! Spf121188 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all the coverage is extremely local. That is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locality of coverage is irrelevant. And do you really think full-page length articles are not SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: And how is UPI "extremely local"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, UPI certainly isn't local, but the article seems to be about him being in drug rehab.. Doesn't seem super relevant. Spf121188 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is coverage. News sources picked it up, and that's WP:GNG being met. Anything further is personal preference of editors, which basically is WP:IDONTLIKEIT in disguise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG with feature article coverage, including in a major regional daily, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. If the coverage were in a hyper-local, small-town newspaper, I could better understand the argument against the coverage ... but this is a major regional newspaper .. the Star-Telegram is one of the top 50 newspapers in the USA and No. 4 in Texas. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I do recognize that the article is a featured one in a large newspaper, I just didn't feel as if the level of and quantity of articles was enough to pass GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the nom, the article is a microstub sourced only to a database. It is not particularly encyclopedic as it stands and sorely needs expansion and TLC. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded a bit, including some coverage from the Dallas Morning News, which are available at NewsLibrary.com. Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources seem to pass WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn. In light of sources being presented by Cbl62 and BeanieFan11, I think instead of deletion this article can be improved and the subject meets GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG per the above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:06, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jansen van Vuuren[edit]

Louis Jansen van Vuuren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability; seems to fail criteria for notability both as visual artist (Major collections; the best I could find was "2002-2003 Portfolio Bed & Breakfast Collection cover. With its pomegranates, figs and cherries, the artwork was perfectly displayed in the dining room at Klippe River Country House, Swellendam". Sources are either self-published or a gallery that sells his things. TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability. As noted by the nominator, the references aren't reliable sources. One item is about van Vuuren's house, another a gallery that sells his work, and mulitple citations to the artist's own website. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability. Citations not good. MartinWilder (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. !Voters gave appropriate rationale for their arguments. As noted, sourcing definitely needs to be improved, and maybe a rename is in order, but these can take place outside of WP:AFD. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of vector spaces[edit]

Examples of vector spaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A list of examples of vector spaces is not notable. Also, this seems to be a case of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Plus we already have this content in brief under Vector space#Examples. Ajf773 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Good resource for research. Vector space#Examples should give a short list of particularly informative examples but there is room in wikipedia for a more comprehensive (and advanced) list Robinh (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the deletion rationales so far really add up. This article is simply the expanded version (per WP:Summary style) of Vector space#Examples. The content in the separate article is just as encyclopedically relevant as the content in that section. There's nothing there there that's didactic, so I can't see how it could be a case of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK; if it were, then that consideration would equally well apply to the section in the main article. Is there anything I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The concept of a vector space is obviously notable, and so a list of examples is, in principle, proper encyclopedia material. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is a somewhat squishy rule in practice, as it can be hard to say if a given piece of technical content is too textbook-y. I think that for any reasonable drawing of that line, though, this falls on the good side. It's written much more like a reference to look up things within than a narrative to lead a student into a subject. An expansion of a section in another article is not redundant with that article. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be worth renaming List of vector spaces. "Examples" stinks of unnotability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Vector spaces exist. I agree, rename it to List of vector spaces. Dream Focus 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with XOR'easter: a good encyclopedic article like Vector space should have a list of key examples; spinning that list out into a separate article seems very defensible. There is a potential for textbookiness, but I share the feeling that this particular article, as written, avoids it. Obviously the fact that there are no references whatsoever is not good, but that's a fixable problem (at a glance I think all the material is referenceable in principle). --JBL (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought one reference over from Vector space#Examples, so the cardinality of the set of references is nonzero. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per XOR'easter. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Three idents[edit]

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

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

I don't see why this article exists. This should be summarised and added to the main BBC Three article. ComplainingCamel (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No rationale for deletion given. Artw (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We're not Logopedia, and many of the sources are abused to being used twenty times throughout the article or just dispersed among three or four originally-researched sites, along with unacceptable Twitter and YouTube sourcing. And contrary to the nominator, don't add this sludge to the BBC Three article, because it doesn't help a reader understand the television network itself. Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that much of this information is already on the main article, (I know, typical newbie behaviour), in a section called "Presentation", further decreasing the importance of this article. | ComplainingCamel (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not important article for me. Additionally, these idents are fake and are a mock/fanmade. 114.125.236.179 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of these BBC Three idents are mock and not existed. Unless there needs a cleanup, this article should be deleted without question or merge into main BBC Three article. 202.67.42.7 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have no idea what those people are going on about images being mock/fanmade, unless they're looking at a different page... Anyway, I think the page could probably be better placed in the main BBC Three page, using alternative free images to demonstrate a similar point between style changes, except maybe keeping the three hands. Plus, certain sections do go on and being moved might give the information an opportunity to be condensed by having wider exposure to editors and people viewing the main article. Regarding Wikipedia policy, the number of fair use images is borderline excessive and, repeating what I just said, the available logos are definitely reasonable, e.g. the 2008 logo instead of the 2013 ident. If someone wants to try that idea, BBC Three#History has some ok info, which would just need a few images added and stuff about design. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main BBC Three article given that most of these idents aired by BBC Three are recreation and not necessary to be included. 125.167.58.242 (talk) 22:09, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. E. Lawrence[edit]

W. E. Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is sourced only to IMDb. IMDB is not reliable, it is also super comprehensive, so that inclusion and mention in it in no way shows notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As he had played significant role on that film which is mentioned on his filmography as all the films were in blue as well as all are notable films. Fade258 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Entirely agree with JPL that if IMBD is the only source here it should be deleted, however other sources appear available - A Biographical Dictionary of Silent Film Western Actors and Actresses p.202 has a potted biography of William E. Lawrence that gets into Sigcov territory. Lawrence was discussed in the newspaper article quoted in this books that borders on SIGCOV. This 1923 article in Picturegoer magazine also just about gets over the line for SIGCOV. I'll admit these are slim pickings but given the extensive number of films he is credited as appearing in I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that significnat coverage of hime exists sufficient to give a WP:BASIC pass. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources (now added to the article) - though this is borderline. The number of notable films he appears in makes the page worth keeping and adds to the encyclopaedia. A better BEFORE probably could have been performed before nomination. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above, with No WP:BEFORE done by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To find the key information that allowed me to uncover the other information provided above I had to page through several pages of results on GBooks. I think the criticism of JPL above is misplaced, particularly given the very low standard of sourcing in the article prior to the addition of the other references. I think we all agree that even with the new sourcing this is a borderline case, though I put it on the "keep" side of that borderline. The article should not have been created in its original, non-notable form. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the BEFORE was particularly egregious - but I think flicking through a couple of GBooks pages is the least we should expect from a nominator. I independently found these sources before I saw your comment. If we could do it, the nom probably could. The nomination also doesn't seem to indicate any further search was done. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Leban[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Alza08 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 2 appearances in the FFA Cup, which means he meets NFOOTBALL, as they were appearances in a competitive match between two teams from WP:FPL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Aisen Ishak made 2 appearances in the FFA Cup, yet his Wikipedia article was deleted on the grounds of failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Alza08 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Those were against semi professional clubs. Simione001 (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we clearly have no passing of GNG, which all sports SNGs explicitly require all articles to also pass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Played against A-League side Perth Glory FC in the FFA Cup therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or appropriate alternative (if there is one) As the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and passing NFOOTY is not a criterion for keeping in and of itself: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.. This is a modern day player, so the presumption of NFOOTY should be able to be backed up easily. I can't find anything but a few profiles from the club he's playing for (therefore not independent sources), and the usual routine databases. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Draftification might be appropriate as a case of WP:TOOSOON (this player having made their first appearance only a few months ago). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination appears to have been made in error as the player appears to meet NFOOTBALL. Also meets WP:GNG with this (unfotuntatley I can't access the article text but appears to be dedicated to this player), this and mentions in this. Young player at the start of this career so likely to receive more coverage in the future. Article doesn't have any obvious problems so I don't think draftification is a good idea as that prevents readers from finding the article. NemesisAT (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NemesisAT. --Vaco98 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination is false, as NFOOTBALL is met (as is demonstrated above). Can User:Alza08 withdraw nomination? Also, had the winning goal getting the team to the final here. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 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 redirect to List of Anglican schools in New South Wales. as a valid ATD. History is under the redirect if there's sourced material folks want to merge. Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macarthur Anglican School[edit]

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

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

Non-notable (NSCHOOL), unverified, and seemingly unverifiable. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Draftify - It is a notable school in the Sydney area. There are a couple of articles about their building program here and here. They do well with the Indonesian language and have had some notable students.Gusfriend (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The primary, trivial sources provided by Gusfriend really don't help with notability and I couldn't find anything that does. So unless someone can come up with some independent, in-depth coverage, this clearly isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG as with pretty much every other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That used to be the standard in years past, but the bar has been raised and consensus (as noted in WP:NSCHOOL) says that's not enough anymore. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The school is legit and the page is almost 15 years old. But on the other hand the page is extremely poor without a single source. I honestly don't know what to do here. Make it a draft? MaskedSinger (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not seeing anything that distinguishes this school, and sources are lacking, so it fails NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of Anglican schools in New South Wales. There is some encyclopaedic content here and it deserves to be kept. The subject is not notable in its own right. The best I could find are [6][7][8] [9][10][11][12] If the bar has changed there will be more of these, but as AtD the list article could do with some content so why not have a small section for each school in the list. If any are notable in their own right then link to that from their section in the list. Schools are an item of interest to people so will be search terms. Aoziwe (talk) 12:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CHNE-TV[edit]

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

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

Non-notable community channel; fails WP:NBROADCAST; only one sentence. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it is not notable. It does not have any references. It only has one sentence. No significant coverage anywhere. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia seems to be going on a massive delete frenzy lately and I find this very concerning for a project that claims to want to be the greatest encyclopedia ever made. It has references in its external links. What would qualify as "significant coverage"? Do you mean on cable services in the area? I'll settle for an Alternative to Deletion such as mentioning it (and including its infobox) in the town of license's page in a Media section, if it must be deleted, however. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about it in newspapers, by which we could actually verify anything about it, would be a start. What kind of programming does or did it broadcast, for example? Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Station broadcasts over-the-air, and this is a perfectly acceptable stub. It's certainly significant to the community it's in, and sometimes that's all that's needed. Nate • (chatter) 17:37, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CIHC-TV[edit]

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

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

Non-notable community channel; fails WP:NBROADCAST; only one sentence. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it is not notable. Does not cite any sources and no significant coverage about it anywhere. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia seems to be going on a massive delete frenzy lately and I find this very concerning for a project that claims to want to be the greatest encyclopedia ever made. It has references in its external links. What would qualify as "significant coverage"? Do you mean on cable services in the area? I'll settle for an Alternative to Deletion such as mentioning it (and including its infobox) in the town of license's page in a Media section, if it must be deleted, however. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about it in newspapers, by which we could actually verify anything about it, would be a start. What kind of programming does or did it broadcast, for example? Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OTA community channels like this are rare, and notable for that reason alone. In any case, any OTA channel operating until about 2010 or so in developed markets had a significant impact on their community. That it has a single sentence in it's body should encourage someone worried about the depth of the page to add more information.Transient-understanding (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Station broadcasts over-the-air, and this is a perfectly acceptable stub. It's certainly significant to the community it's in, and sometimes that's all that's needed. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 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 keep. ✗plicit 01:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kitt Wakeley[edit]

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

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

No indication of Notability, fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Topic does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Many hits in Google, mostly from the Oklahoman newspaper, one in the Deccan Chronicle, looks like a cut and paste from Wikipedia. Nothing really found outside of local sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 2 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!} 06:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Kitt certainly quite notable, so I'm surprised by this nomination. He has a lot of news in Oklahoma and around the US. He's got several Billboard Charts hits and thus meets WP:NMUSIC.

His Midnight in Macedonia was on the first round of Grammy ballots in four different categories: Best Contemporary Instrumental Album, Best Arrangement Instrumental A Capella, Best Instrumental Composition, and Best Rock Performance.

The first three releases from the album hit number one on the Billboard Charts' Hard Rock Digital Sales, while at the same time hitting other Billboard Charts such as Rock Digital Song Sales and Hot Hard Rock Songs Chart.

The album itself hit number one on Billboard's Crossover Classical and Classical Charts, hitting the categories of Heatseekers, Hard Rock Albums, Top Rock Albums, Top Current Album Sales, Top Album Sales, Independent Albums.

These statements about the Billboard Charts are not sourced in the article. I have marked them there as ^{[citation needed]} because these seem to be the key facts that would establish notability. Please say what your sources are, thanks. Also, I'm not sure that being on a first round Grammy ballot is significant - it appears that anyone can nominate within a category - but I can't confirm that on the Grammy site. However, this fact also needs to be sourced. Lamona (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a result. Apricotrabbit (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. He has stories in The Oklahoman [13][14], Broadway World [15][16], and even quite a bit of news on his family background [17], as well as many other news sites. Awards and nominations are notable. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's enough between the sources shared above to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 20:56, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Lupancu[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Alza08 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:06, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 3 appearances in the FFA Cup, which means he meets NFOOTBALL, as they were appearances in a competitive match between two teams from WP:FPL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Aisen Ishak made 2 appearances in the FFA Cup, yet his Wikipedia article was deleted on the grounds of failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Alza08 (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of Ishak, User:Alza08 the games were a team that wasn't fully professional, and NFOOTBALL wasn't met. In this case it was against a fully-professional team and NFOOTBALL is met. Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we should not have articles built on youth player profiles. In this case if this meets football notability, we need to change football notability to better reflect what actual leads to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Played against A-League side Perth Glory FC in the FFA Cup therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets NFOOTBALL as per above. Also meets long-standing consensus that articles can be created after first professional cap. Also there is some coverage here. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 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. There is no consensus even a week after this got relisted. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lethlean[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Alza08 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appearance in the FFA Cup, which means he meets NFOOTBALL, as they were appearances in a competitive match between two teams from WP:FPL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Our sourcing does not meet GNG. The sports SNGs are very clear subjects must meet GNG. This has been upheld at RfC. It is high time that editors start respecting this decision, and where they ignore it, closing administrators should ignore their imput because it does not conform to Wikipedia policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG as the only coverage of him is in indiscriminate databases, and in news published by his team. BilledMammal (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per nomination. And I'm going to add, I sincerely hope no closing administrator ever chooses to ignore an editors input, while acknowledging that all arguments for these nominations should be based on WP policy. We're a community here, and we're to assume good faith. Spf121188 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When editors try to use policies in violation of what they actually say, their votes should be discounted. In the recent discussion to delete the sports SNGs, many people explicitly said that this needs to be done, and that one reason to keep the sports SNGs is that administrators can and should explicitly ignore the votes of people who misues the sports SNGs to try to keep articles that do not pass GNG, and thus do not actually pass the sports SNGs. When we see a clear pattern, we have a right to identify it and speak out against it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. I've always been more inclined to try and point others in the right direction, try to help as much as we can. We, as editors, have to try and always stay cool when the editing gets hot. But again, I'm not disagreeing with you. Which is why I !voted delete. Spf121188 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert You are very much misrepresenting the notability guidelines, which are NOT policies. NSPORTS also says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. So your "policy" is actually only a "rule of thumb". Furthermore, the long-standing consensus in this project, as you well know, is that articles can be created for young footballers at the point they meet NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)xx[reply]

• Keep - As the other KEEP voter pointed out, he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. He is in A-League professional team listed at WP:FPL and has played at least one game.Caphadouk (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Played against A-League side Perth Glory FC in the FFA Cup therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets NFOOTBALL as per above. Also meets long-standing consensus that articles can be created after first professional cap. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BNI (organization)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable marketing/sales company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage consists of paid pr. Ivan Misner may be notable for his work in sales/marketing but his company/franchise is certainly not. Jared Duckett (talk) 07:58, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finance Magnates[edit]

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

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

Non-notable PR magazine. Most of their articles are basically press releases by different companies. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Jared Duckett (talk) 08:02, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need more news coverage on it. Not enough exists. Chelokabob (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sure, it exists, but no indications of notability and references fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi Vidyalaya Matriculation and Higher Secondary School[edit]

Sindhi Vidyalaya Matriculation and Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

FailsWP:GNG and WP:NCORP The Banner talk 10:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete from what I can tell all there is about this are a couple of trivial name drops on some school directory websites and two dead links from The Hindu. None of which helps this to be notable. I couldn't find anything else about it anywhere that would be useful for notability either. So I don't see a reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the school exists but I could find no actual significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 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 G7 speedy deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 08:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petkit Technology[edit]

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

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

Non notable organization that fails NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search links me to directories, a plethora of primary sources such as user generated sources and other self published sources. The Forbes source was by a contributor and the Bloomberg source is basically a profile page thus WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. All claims of notability are sourced to self published sources thus isn’t reliable. Furthermore this is an ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotional article as well as sources indicate promotional purposes.--Tysska (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the current article, without prejudice that the company may be notable and worthy of a very differently-written article. The current article is clearly entirely promotional, basically a combination of a list of investment and a product-catalogue, neither of which is the role of an encyclopaedia. The red-dot awards, although "notable" in the sense of having a WP page, and although selective in the sense of being judged, are not that selective (a very large numbers of red dot awards are handed out each year), there is a substantial payment required for the process, and red dot's web-site goes to a lot of trouble to market the advantages that a red-dot award brings to your business - all of which raises questions about whether they're a genuine sign of notability or a valuable marketing-aid that a company can buy into. Elemimele (talk) 14:33, 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. notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yulian Kurtelov[edit]

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

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

The player doesn't meet the WP:NSOCCER guidelines. He played only 3 matches in a top-tier league at the beginning of his career, while spending most of his career in low-tier non-notable leagues. I cannot find reliable sources showing the player as notable. In addition, the article has multiple issues: it is written in promotional tone and report trivial information P1221 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. P1221 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. P1221 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully-professional league, this is incomplete. More importantly, fails GNG. GiantSnowman 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability cannot be demonstrated according to WP: NSOCCER.--Tysska (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete Voting Delete per the reason above, but I am not against this article being created again if the article meets the guidelines. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deleted by admin as part of mass deletion of pages added by Ali Imran Awan (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Records Edition 2020[edit]

Guinness World Records Edition 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable edition of Guinness World Records. Nthep (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there doesn't seem to be an article for other editions. Anything notable could do in main page Guinness World Records Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They copied and pasted that, then created another 5 articles about other books in that series with the same info with no sources. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👻👻) 13:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Individual GWR books are typically non-notable, this is not an exception. Anything that stands out about any of the individual volumes can be covered in the main article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 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. Non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adangathey[edit]

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

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

Unreleased film since 2017 whose production does not meet the WP:NFF guidelines. No coverage found apart from announcements, press releases, and interviews. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Courtesy ping to @Donaldd23 and Cinzia007: who originally PROD'ed and deproded the article respectively. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFF. Nothing has changed since I originally PROD'd the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As noted above, fails WP:NFF, nothing beyond basic announcements / interviews. Ravensfire (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NFF, no reliable coverage i could find. --The helper5667 (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nyzzy Nyce[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG - There are a few puff piece interviews, however, no charting or notable coverage or projects that qualify for WP:NMUSIC. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have a Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The "too soon" standard does not quite fit because the rapper was active from around 2014 to 2017 then seems to have dropped out. But the nominator is correct on the lack of sources that are not introductory puff pieces or promotional announcements from the record company. He got a little notice in his hometown's media, but he was only listed briefly as a member of the local scene or as being present at events that were about other things. That is the origin of many of the article's citations ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the rapper had an album article in WP, which I have redirected to his bio article because the album was also low on sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:40, 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.