< February 16	February 18 >

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

I would like to ask if this page could be reinstated, please, in order to remove any promotional language and provide published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Thanks so much for this consideration!

Katherine ByeByeNYC (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GridGain Systems[edit]

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

They do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Page is clearly created for promotion. Page creator's edits on Wikipedia promote this company. Daringsmith (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I tried to work on this in 2016, but it appears single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Tdieds1945 added some more promotion, and spun off an entirely new Apache Ignite article on the technology. Then various editors removed more of the promotion, resulting in, well not much. Certainly not enough to justify two articles, so I would say remove this one or redirect it to Apache Ignite. W Nowicki (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It definitely doesn't meet WP:NCORP, as there are very few articles that are reliable and independent. I don't think that there are any good articles that it can be merged/redirected to. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:19, 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 01:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NexGen Storage[edit]

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

They do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the references are paid press releases. Daringsmith (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: this sounded familiar. Indeed, back in 2016 I proposed merging this into Fusion-io but the merge expired a couple years later after I got re-employed briefly. There already is a brief mention of NexGen in that article. If I have some time today I can try to mention it in the SanDisk article too, since it is not clear where it should go. Probably not enough sources to make the case for a separate article. W Nowicki (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seeing as how there is already a mention in the Fusion-io article, references fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poddar International College[edit]

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

I don't often send college articles to AfD but this seemed like a clear candidate. I was going to draftify but a near-identical version already sits there (created by the same user). I'm not seeing sufficient coverage for WP:NORG, in particular WP:ORGDEPTH is not met as the coverage that I can find is just listings in Outlook India or a mention in a Brand Connect post in Forbes India which also fails WP:ORGIND. Also note that Google Books had nothing of substance and I'm not convinced by my ProQuest search either. I did find this article but it reads more like an advert for the school rather than independent journalism! I might be wrong, though.

Draft:Poddar International College can stay but the mainspace article should be deleted unless clear NORG coverage can be demonstrated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE. ManaliJain (talk) 05:16, 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 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!} 23:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Reclosing this case which was previously closed as a "Soft Delete". This was inappropriate so I am now closing it as a straight "Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Karma[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as only 1 review present and no others found. Tagged since August 2021. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 10 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 23:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability established. A search reveals few reviews and no evidence of wider appeal in terms of awards, distribution, etc. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:16, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Morris[edit]

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

It's Morris

This article about a television show does not satisfy television notability or general notability. It has been moved from article space to draft space once, and copied back into article space without addressing the concern that it lacks Reception information, and that the sources are not reliable and secondary. Review of the sources shows that none of them are significant coverage.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Netondemand.mt	Short description of show	No	Yes		No
2	Gwida.mt	Interview with actress	No			No
3	Ourwedding.mt	Interview with two actors	No			No
4	newsbook.com.mt	Article about actress	No			No
5	newsbook.com.mt	Information about actress's YouTube channel	No			No
6	lovinm.alta.com	Interview with actress	No			No
7	m3p.com.mt	Profile of another actress	No	Yes	No - Reader-generated content	No
8	bay.com.mt	Information about other shows	Yes	No		No
9	m3p.com.mt	Profile of an actor	No		No - Reader-generated content	No

An article probably can be developed on the show that will pass notability, so the draft should be kept. This article does not pass notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This article should not be deleted cause it obeys Wikipedia's notability requirements for films. In accordance with WP:NOTFILM, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". I appreciate your feedback but all sources which I referenced are independent. NET Television is a television station in Malta owned by Media.link Communications, the media arm of the Nationalist Party. It started broadcasting in 1998 so how come it's not an independent source and reliable? You listed Gwida as well. "Gwida has been the best-selling magazine in Malta for over 50 years" ^[1] so it is definitely a reliable and independent source. You listed Lovin Malta too. If you go on their website, they post articles about food and drink, lifestyle (art, celebrities, fashion, human interest, music and animals), politics, sport... so it is definitely an independent source and reliable as well. Also, the information from the sources which I referenced are all significant. I presume you're not from Malta so obviously you could not understand the articles written in Maltese. For example, the one which I referencee from Gwida magazine, yes as you mentioned it is an interview with the producer / director Eileen Montesin but it is absolutely significant as she said "Morris kien challenge gdid. Peress li Mark Haber li jaħdem il-parti ta' Morris huwa fil-fatt ir-raġel tiegħi fil-ħajja reali" which means that this series was a challenge due to the fact that Haber is her husband. Later on, she said "għamilt spin off minn Becky u rnexxieli noħroġ żewġ sensiliet ta' it's Morris b'suċċess". So why is this interview not significant to the article if here she's saying It's Morris is a spin-off from Becky and she managed to create two seasons of It's Morris with success. You mentioned the article from Newsbook. As a comment you wrote, "Information about actress's Youtube channel". However, I referenced this source cause towards the end of the article, there's written "Fuq l-istess channel tal-YouTube bdew ukoll jitilgħu l-episodji ta’ It’s Morris b’Mark Haber fil-parti ewlenija taz-ziju Morris." which means that on this youtube channel, episodes of It's Morris are being uploaded, where Haber plays Uncle Morris. I appreciate your feedback cause I want to keep learning in Wikipedia Editing but honestly, a lot of the information which you listed in the table is misleading. Other Maltese natives can support this. It's not your fault obviously cause if you're not Maltese, you won't be familiar with our magazines, the language, etc... but the way you commented on the article, administrators might delete it for wrong reasons, that's why I tried to clarify the sources and referencee which I used cause everything is independent and significant to the article. Again, thanks for your feedback but it would be a shame if the article gets deleted cause Montesin's productions are so popular in Malta, and it's really a pity that there are very few Maltese Wikipedia editors, which is why there aren't a lot of articles about Maltese shows, cause fellow editors like you would reasonably doubt it's notability and do not understand the show's popularity, nor are they familiar with which sources are independent. If there are other Maltese Wikipedia editors, and administrators, they would definitely not delete it cause every source is independent and relative. Thanks. Tbwqbc1 (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbwqbc1 at least three of the sources are interviews, which are primary sources and not (usually) thought of as reliable. Two of the other sources are user-generated, the first only has a small paragraph of content, and the rest are just about the actors/actresses themselves. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A new era for Gwida Magazine".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Robert McClenon's source table. If it were to be kept, it would need much better sourcing. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say draftify, but a draft already exists. I would also require, due to the editing history, that the draft be required to go through AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 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 merge to 2020–2022 China–India skirmishes. ✗plicit 23:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuduram Soren[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No indication of being notable. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2020–2022 China–India skirmishes. Pure WP:1E with only local coverage of his posthumous award. Mztourist (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. This seems like a rather clear case of WP:BIO1E -Ljleppan (talk) 14:40, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey_Likes_It_Ice_Cream[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mikey Likes It Ice Cream

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

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill ice-cream shop with nothing more than the normal publicity that I'd expect. I can't see great sources. Someone just added some information about them teaming up with Microsoft, which looked potentially interesting, but they ref-bombed it with a huge list of very weak sources, so I'm not even convinced by that. Doesn't look in any way notable. Elemimele (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Mikey's has collaborated with Geico, Microsoft, and Ewing, but more importantly it has a ton of coverage in reliable sources, including Vice, Essence, NY Post, and ABC News, among others. pburka (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it's a stub right now doesn't mean it can't be expanded. A quick Google search turned up dozens of articles, some almost 10 years ago and one from only 6 days ago, showing that it does have lasting coverage. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wgullyn: I'd be really grateful if you could suggest one that's not an interview. It'd be just so good if we can get this article supported by at least one source that's independent of the subject. All four of those suggested by Pburka are interviews/churnalism and when I did my googling, all I could find was a complete plethora of almost identical interview-based pieces, and blog-type stuff about the Microsoft icecream. Elemimele (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of honesty, I should make it clear that I removed a sentence about the microsoft collaboration before creating this AfD because it was supported by no less than 17 citations, all of which were to interviews, blogs etc.; anyone who wishes to assess those sources is welcome to have a look at the previous version here [1]. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some reliable sources on the topic, including The Verge NBC eater.com. Sure, there are a lot of interviews, but there are definitely secondary sources in the mix. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dismissal of any source that includes an interview isn't supported by Wikipedia policies, and dismissing reliable sources as "churnalism" certainly isn't. Regardless, the business has also received significant coverage in Rehabilitation Is Reentry (Garot; p. 315; Routledge; 2019), and Stronger Together (Clinton and Kaine; p. 201; Simon & Schuster; 2016). pburka (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors fail to realise that sources may be used to support facts/information within an article - and sure, interviews are fine for that. But there's a different examination for sources used to establish notability - and primary sources (which is what an interview is) are not acceptable for certain topics, such as companies/organizations. Check out WP:ORGIND and the definition for "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please do put the book references in. But honestly the existing sources apart from your books are not good sources. Theverge one says next to nothing about the ice-cream business, it's mostly a promotional piece for microsoft, and quite probably commissioned publicity. The Newyork entertainment piece is a short interview piece featuring 4 icecream outlets, of which this one gets less than 30sec. The eater is also really just a passing reference, being mostly about Hilary Clinton. These are fine as subsidiary references, but is there anything in depth and independent? If the books are, please put them in, because the article desperately needs them.

as for the comment about dismissing interviews, Pburka, I quote "Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources" from Wikipedia:Interviews. That's precisely what I want. Elemimele (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you're not mistaking an essay for policy. pburka (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. The WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS section most likely applies to this type of company.

I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obvious blogs or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, *interviews* fail ORGIND. They are considered primary sources for most purposes. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Most discuss the tie-in with Windows11 but even then, the others focus on the owner/founder - great story but doesn't translate to notability of the company for me. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. If anyone wants to post other references (perhaps reviews?) I'm happy to review and perhaps change my mind. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 23 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!} 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - despite refbombing, there is little independent coverage from good sources. 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep References represent SIGCOV and are independent and reliable. Passes GNG GoldMiner24 ^Talk 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, not notable as explained by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Routine promo article with no historical or encyclopeadic value. scope_creep^Talk 02:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are assertions about the sources that are diametrically opposite to one another, but at the moment the closing admin is being asked to judge the sources for themselves; elaboration from all parties of why they consider sources counting toward NCORP, or why they don't, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: thank you for your accurate summary. My personal view is that although the supporting sources are in good places, they're all fairly trivial, and generic: for example one is an interview piece visiting several ice-cream outlets, which means it's more about the concept of ice-cream sales in NY than about Mikey's, and is a rather short feel-good space-filler; the Microsoft bit is about Mikey's, but my impression is that some marketing people had a mutually-beneficial idea, and this is the sort of publicity they'd generate to carry it through. My attention was drawn to this article in the first place by an addition that was ref-bombed with 17 sources, some of which were automatically tagged as deprecated and unreliable [2]. But of course many bad sources doesn't mean all bad sources. And I am absolutely happy to put my hands up and admit I don't know the full details of the ice-cream or publishing scenes in NY: an independent assessment of the sources from someone else would carry far more weight than mine. Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal coverage exists of this two (three?) location ice cream chain. Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:TOOSOON. It's a nice feel good story - hopefully more coverage will occur as he expands. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article would probably be a narrow pass on WP:GNG, but the community norm is that a mere WP:GNG pass when coupled with an WP:NCORP fail renders an article notable. Much of the coverage is about Cole as a person—coverage of Cole's story as a convicted felon-turned-ice cream salesman is an inspiring story, the coverage of which very well may render him passing WP:NBIO. But I'm not really seeing coverage in the online sources that the pair of stores passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing above that pburka mentions at least one usable book (I'm not so sure about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manifesto being an RS in this context). I don't have access to the source, but I might be persuaded that coverage goes beyond WP:CORPDEPTH if the coverage in that book is substantial. Is anybody able to describe the sorts of facts that the book contains regarding the article subject? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

806 in Japan[edit]

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

I find it impossible that this article has lasted this long despite having no sources and only 2 events with the other sections being empty. The only reason I can see this existing is for easier navigation through the years, but it is so short and so undeveloped in so long of a time that I suggest redirecting or merging with 806 In asia, or even deleting all together. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two entries are both about the death of Emperor Kanmu, and 806 already lists this event and one other pertaining to Japan (the founding of Hōzen-ji). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not impossible since it still exists. However, I'm fine with Deletion as I don't have the time to expand it right now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't appear to be anything in this article that isn't already mentioned in the article on the year 806, so this is a duplicative content fork as it currently stands. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never Know[edit]

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

I strongly feel this Bad Omens song article doesn't meet notability guidelines WP:NSONG for inclusion, and should probably just be merged to band page, as we don't even have an article for the containing album (per "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." NSONG recommendation). The single chart this appeared on was not a Top 100 or such, but rather a very region- and genre-specific Mainstream Rock chart - such mediocre charting does not alone demonstrate notability. By comparison, the Bad Omens song 'Limits' on the same album charted higher and stayed on longer, and even an article for that song would not be warranted. There is almost no mainstream reliable source coverage of this song for any other merits, and it has virtually no chance of becoming more than the existing stub. Added: The 6 references currently consist of 4 refs about the song that are minimal "press release" style release information (no reviews), 1 interview article about the album as a whole (not a review and not a mainstream music news site), and of course the chart performance link. -- Netoholic @ 22:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as creator. The song passes WP:NSONGS by it's charting on a major chart, (Top 30 of a valid WP:GOODCHART)and kept receiving coverage. Much of the nomination is irrelevant otherwise - the fact that the same band had another single that charted better but doesn't have its own article is a complete WP:OSE failure. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is a comment from the article's creator. And I'll reiterate that chart performance alone is not sufficient (WP:NSONG: "this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable"). The song's chart performance can (and is) already mentioned on the Bad Omen page, making this entire stub moot. -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. Apologies, I forgot that step. I spend a lot of time at AFD but its pretty rare to be discussing my own article creations here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73. Incidentally, since the first point of WP:NSONG appears to contradict itself, I am going to start a discussion on that talk page about that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, Netoholic, if you think the song isn't notable, why not avoid an AfD and just redirect the article to the album? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a lot wrong with his nomination, but to his credit, AFD wasn't the wrong venue this time (unlike when he crashed the move discussion.) If he had boldly redirected, I just would have boldly reverted him, and he probably realized that and just cut to the chase. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Sergecross' argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 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 redirect to Oundle School. This is complicated, with the reliability of UK Who's Who a key factor as so many keeps are in part reliant on that. Given that consensus, there is no other significant factor present here to keep Kerr-Dineen's article. However, nor is there BLP issue sourcing that merits delete. As such, the article history is under the redirect should anyone want to selectively merge. Star Mississippi 01:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kerr-Dineen[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage about this person. Certainly accomplished, but the current sourcing is comprised of mentions, and PR pieces . Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of major English private school. Meets GNG from sources, particularly Who's Who. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nothing in Jstor or GScholar, only hyper-local stuff in Gnews. Mostly mentioned in passing as being at the school. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is Head of a major English public school. Clearly meets GNG. She has a Who's Who page, has articles about her in newspapers and has a chapter in a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffolk J (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC) — Suffolk J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as meets WP:GNG, though the article isn't great with proper citation. But there are SIGCOV and not necessary for everyone to have in JSTOR or GScholar(Are we too much dependent on Jstor, GScholar and nytimes here?). --NeverTry4Me - TT page 09:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone else find it disturbing that we include the head of Oundle's bog-standard response following an Ofsted report (“This inspection report is an independent record of the work of every member of the staff community as evidenced in the outstanding quality of the outcomes experienced and shown by our pupils”) when almost exactly the same thing has been said by every head of every school in England? If you happen to be head of a busy bog-standard state-funded school, no one cares. I would feel more comfortable with Kerr-Dineen's article if it dwelt on her notable achievements rather than assuming that she's notable ex officio because Oundle is an important school. The article on Oundle_School contains a list of notable headmasters. Are all headmasters notable, or do they have to contribute something unique, or make a lasting impression in educational literature, histories, etc., or at least in national newspapers, to qualify as notable? Elemimele (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Who's Who entry clinches the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not arguing for delete; I think this is a keep too. But I wanted to register disapproval of the "head of major school" argument, on the grounds that I'd rather heads earn their notability than inherit it. In her case, clearly the editors of who's who believe she's earned it, and that's enough. I might have a grump on the talk-page about some of the content. Elemimele (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PER/WP:EVERYONEELSE. AfD discussions are not a vote. Pilaz (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither GNG nor NACADEMIC are met, and also a likely violation of WP:NOTCV. Being the head of a "major English private school" (what constitutes such a claim remains to be explained) doesn't make one inherently notable, since notability is in the quasi-totality of cases not inherited. Editors who cite the UK Who's Who are wrong about the reliability of the publication. On top of the fact that Who's Who directories are not reliable sources (per almost every discussion at RSN), and besides the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory, this discussion at RSN based on a 2004 investigative piece by the Spectator has uncovered that UK's Who's Who has admitted in the past that it doesn't fact check every entry and corrections are only made upon mutual agreement - meaning that if a person says they studied in Oxford rather than in London, and they just ignore requests from correction from UK Who's Who (assuming anybody has lodged a complaint, which I find hard to believe since UKWW is behind a paywall), nothing is done. That means that UKWW cannot be considered a reliable source and cannot therefore count towards any GNG analysis. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to add to my previous comment, the remaining in-depth coverage she receives is run-of-the-mill local press coverage from Oundle Chronicle (a town of 5,000 where she heads the local school) and from a 2009 East London and West Essex Guardian piece, from when she was the head of another school, which interviewed her with hard-hitting questions such as "Do you have any pets?" "What's the one thing you can't do without in the morning?", "What is your favourite film?". Great if you're trying to remember your forgotten password, not so great to prove notability. Pilaz (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because there have been some issues in the past with Who's Who does not mean that it is not a reliable verifier of notability. Wikipedia describes it as listing the biographies of '33,000 influential people', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Who_(UK). Kerr-Dineen's page can certainly do with some improvement. However the fact that the UK's major source of biographical data, which is a reliable source, has a section on her is evidence of notability for me. Suffolk J (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Suffolk J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Per WP:SOURCE: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. UK Who's Who has a poor reputation for fact-checking as per the Spectator piece and its own executives; 2 other editors concur with this assertion. Regarding your comment about the Wikipedia page saying they are "influential people", see WP:CIRCULAR: Wikipedia is a user-generated source and cannot be used to assert notability. Finally, we don't have an obligation to list people who are in a Who's Who on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a directory. Pilaz (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough sources to show notability, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the validity of the sourcing would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of issues like hyper local coverage and routine coverage I would say we do not have enough sourcing to truly pass GNG and we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I find Pilaz's argument above very persuasive, and he has clearly demonstrated that default claiming British Who's Who meets reliability guidelines in not accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has an entry in UK Who's Who (A & C Black/Bloomsbury Publishing & Oxford University Press can be relied on to provide reliable sources for notability) Piecesofuk (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. See RSP entry.
  - It's about it being a source of notability: From the BBC: "Who's Who is among the world's most recognised and respected reference books. It has been published annually by A & C Black since 1897 and was the first biographical book of its kind. It contains over 33,000 short biographies of living noteworthy and influential individuals, from all walks of life, worldwide." The Wall Street Journal: What is it that really puts the stamp of eminence on a modern British life? Certainly not receiving a title in an official honors list. But during your lifetime, two things do count today: having an entry in "Who's Who" and getting asked to choose your eight favorite records on BBC Radio-4's "Desert Island Discs." Piecesofuk (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may be respected in the UK (it is) and the individuals may be influential (many are), but if the information is autobiographical and submitted by the biographees, it is WP:PRIMARY, a WP:SPS, and by extension not independent from the subject. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC both require secondary, independent sources. On top of that, Who's Who has a poor track record with fact-checking and corrections, which goes against WP:REPUTABLE's requirement of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so it cannot be considered a reliable source. All of this is reflected in the Wikipedia-wide lack of consensus on this source. Pilaz (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with what you are saying. But we're not using UK Who's Who here for some questionable biographical information but just as a method to determine whether a person is deemed to be notable enough for an English Wikipedia entry. I think that having a UK Who's Who entry should be considered when determining notability. Piecesofuk (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Per the general notability guideline: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [...] Sources should be secondary sources. Who's Who is neither reliable nor secondary. Therefore it cannot be used to determine the notability of an individual. Pilaz (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It's a secondary source published by A & C Black/Bloomsbury Publishing & Oxford University Press, who are independent of the subject: they have no relationship other than deciding that the subject is notable enough for their publication. Piecesofuk (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If there's no community-wide consensus on reliability, it means you can't simply call it reliable and make it count towards WP:GNG. It's a WP:TERTIARY source which compiles autobiographical sources (WP:PRIMARY), by the way, not a secondary source. Pilaz (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unconvinced that being mentioned in Who's Who is enough WP:SIGCOV, as entries there are not independent on the subject and inclusion in the list is in half of the entries based not on one's personal achievements or notability but due to the holding of a title. As I don't believe that their criteria for the notability of a title is equivalent to Wikipedia's and see the source as generally unreliable, I support deletion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kerr-Dineen does not hold a title. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I was planning to review this at NPP and I must have looked at 40 times over two weeks, and couldn't decide if she was notable or not. I can't determine if there is an article there. I thought initially it was some kind of government appointed position, based some kind old tradition, perhaps in existance for centuries in the UK, not necessarily secret but obscure but I couldn't find anything. I don't see how it can be notable. It is less than borderline. There is three references that are whos who, but that profile is self-written, so they not RS. The rest is a mix of the school and local news. No international coverage, no mainstream newspapers. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - agree with Pilaz. RemotelyInterested (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article on non-notable individual created by single-interest COI account. Ericoides (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both quality and quantity of sources are lacking, as Pilaz and scopecreep have shown. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was not able to locate enough coverage that could help the subject pass GNG. That said, I don't see any indication about "the headmistress" being a post equivalent to or above WP:NACADEMIC#6. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Acadmic notability point 6 was meant to be a sub-set of tertiary educational institutions. It was never intended to include any secondary institutions, and it was not meant to be as near comprehensive of tertiary institutions as some have made it out to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oundle School per WP:ATD-R. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selectively merge to Oundle School. Subject doesn't quite seem to meet WP:GNG, but there's enough to not simply delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has determined that Who's Who UK is generally unreliable and is to be equated to a self-published source. See RSP entry. Pilaz (talk) 15:31, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquotte Delahaye[edit]

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

As a real person, a hoax; as a fictional character, not sufficiently notable. The earliest mention of her that I can find in Google Books is in the 1960s, which doesn't track with her operating in the 1650s; she seems to have originated in a book or books by Léon Treich sometime between the 1940s and 1960s (I don't have full Google Books access to Les femmes d'abordage which seems like it contains info on which book she was in), with her biography being embellished through a horrible game of telephone over time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG. As just one example, the book Pirate Women: The Princesses, Prostitutes, and Privateers Who Ruled the Seven Seas (excerpts of which are available on Google Books), includes multiple pages of coverage about Delahaye (and not from an "in-universe" perspective). Colin M (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one. I am getting plenty of hits, but very few scholarly. The only academic paper I see that mentions her is [3], where he is mentioned on passing with the qualifier "supposed". This is a review of the book Women Pirates and the Politics of the Jolly Roger by Klausmann, Meinzerin, Kuhn, where the reviewer notes this supposed pirate is discussed. Google Books has mostly useless snippet view, but I was able to access the book through Z-library. She has a 4-page chapter there, but the quality of this work is very dubious - the chapter is half-fictionalized (story), and it contains ZERO references or footnotes. Despite receiving one academic review, I don't think we can call this work scholarly (the reviewer also describes the authors as freelancers and the book as offering " a mix of fact, legend, savory recipes, and political dicta "). She is mentioned in [4] (Piracy: From the High Seas to the Digital Age by Lombardo book). I cannot access it so I can only see that she is mentioned on one page. The book is not scholarly - the snippet blurb says the author has A BA in English and writes books for young adults. She gets two pages, again, unreferenced, non-academic in [5]. A more serious (non fiction) but unreferenced paragraph in [6]. Pirate Women: The Princesses, Prostitutes, and Privateers, this is the book mentioned by Colin above, and it is at Z-library too, so I downloaded it. The author, Duncombe, does not appear to be an academic and the book does not appear to have received any academic reviews. She does, however, present a relatively coherent analysis, starting by confirming that the subject is likely a hoax: "If Anne de Graaf has only a small chance of having really lived, Jacquotte Delahaye has an even smaller one. Spanish author Germán Vázquez Chamorro in his book Mujeres Piratas (Pirate Women) claims that she certainly never existed...". Sadly, her work, as mentioned, is nonacademic and has no footnotes, she just refers to "others wrote", and cites, besides Chamorro, only Klausmann (not even bothering to mention the two other co-authors of that work). This being the fifth or sixth sloppy nonacademic rehashing of the same, i where I gave up. As far as more reliable sources go, a few mention her in passing. Ex. [7] by [8] (the chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University) seems to treat her existence as a fact by writing that "Jacquotte Delahaye led a gang of a hundred pirates that took a small Caribbean island from the Spanish in 1656 and died several years later in a shootout defending her “freebooter republic.” (sadly, there is no footnote; this just goes to show that academics can often do half-assed research too and refer to fictional characters as real...).

So in summary... I am leaning weak keep given that her story has proven to be enduring (as a form of a tall tale I guess), but the article needs to clearly say that this is a fictional character. The sources I reviewed did not clarify who invented it or when, although the op is likely right, ex. [9] states that "Jacquotte Delahaye, for example, is said to have been a biracial female filibuster who ... Her life is a 1940s fabrication by French author Léon Treich". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I think that even if we acknowledge that she's an urban legend or whatever, we run into the issue of a paucity of sources discussing her from an out-of-universe perspective. It'd be like if we sourced Vanishing hitchhiker from accounts of people who claimed it happened to them - we clearly couldn't do that even if we took the initiative to reframe it properly as an urban legend. The info that we have on her "life" comes from the primary sources who made it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese If we treat the account of her life as a plot summary, there is still more (the discussion of creation by Treich, the discussion of her in the context of rare but popular female pirates) than in the cases of most fictional characters which nonetheless generate quite a lot of (IMHO, quite weak, argument-wise) keep votes. I base my view on the fact that I've been a regular of the linked list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions which I encourage you to frequent too. From my perspective, she is more notable, and gets more coverage in sources than many comic book characters and similar that have been kept based on simply having plot summaries and media appearances listed in few picture books(!). Now, I am not sure if the comic/popculture fans will appear here (sadly, it doesn't appear Delahaye got her own comic book series yet...), but I do think this is a discussion worth drawing attention to, which is why I am also going to ping User:7&6=thirteen of the (in)famous Article Rescue Squadron. This is a topic than can be, IMHO, rescued, and that includes rewriting the article with sources I found (and similar) that are not very hard to access. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roscelese User:Piotrus WP:ARS is open to any editor. Not a closed club. Anyone is welcome. Given your opinion (above), YOU can and should post it at the Rescue List. You are most welcome and invited to partcipate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hewitt, D.G. (March 1, 2018). "Female Pirates Who Were Every Bit as Fearsome as Blackbeard". History Collection. Retrieved February 20, 2022. has lots of sources, but they relate to other female pirates. Whether she was an historical figure is beside the point. She could be The Count of Monte Cristo and still be notable. WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability; not WP:Truth. Easily meets WP:GNG. Based on the many sources now in the article, WP:Before if done, was imperfect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is History Collection RS? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think so, even setting aside my previously stated belief that any source treating her as a real person is suspect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it is agreed this is a person who was invented in the 20th-century, I removed all categories that are for real historical people. We need to do a much better job of not mixing fictional people into categories for real people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken, my !vote here is Keep. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken. Your !keep !vote was understood. My comment was not directed at you, but instead to others contemplating the situation. Perhaps the formatting was confusing. If so, I apologize. Regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the pieces together, the confusion seems to be because your comment is indented as a reply of mine, and it now sounds like this was not your intention. Thank you for the apology. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fictional or not, she still gets ample mention. Royal Museums Greenwich mentions her Were there female pirates? Uncover the stories of female pirates, rulers and seafarers, and learn about women's lives at sea. Dream Focus 19:39, 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!} 20:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of United States Supreme Court composition templates[edit]

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

This is a strange "article". Its title is "Gallery of United States Supreme Court composition templates" (emphasis mine), which should never be a title in main space, while its content is basically List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition which already has compositions there. Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is human-readable information showing the changes in the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court over time. It should not be named as being a gallery of "templates", which in this context is behind-the-scenes Wikipedia jargon. Perhaps this should be retitled as something like Historic composition of the United States Supreme Court or something like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially the same content as in List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition, except formatted worse. It's an orphan article so I don't think it will be missed. Ajf773 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x2) Delete. It's not a WP:GALLERY of images, but of templates (which is not normally done), and is a poor man's version of the (more colorfully resplendent and detailed) list the nominator has indicated. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOCHKA.net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable web portal. Fails WP:GNG. Kline | yes? 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a stub which does not articulate why this website is notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 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. We're done feeding socks. As with the other articles impacted by their nonsense, I'm not draftifying this. However if @Necrothesp: or another established editor wants to work on this, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunath Behura[edit]

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

To a degree a test case, but subject and content does not seem to pass the bar for an article under WP:GNG with most RS about the death event which was apparently a non-notable car accident. There is a question if either the President's Police Medal for long service, which while honourable, is ranked below the gallantry version, or if Additional director general of police is sufficient reason to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, bearinig in mind statesin India are often larger and more populous than many countries. A WP:NPP has tagged the article for notability but the article author has improved the article and they seem convinced nootability is now satisfied. My BEFORE noted the personal obituary [10] but WP:ANYBIO does not seemed satsfied. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP he Intelligence Bureau, RAW, NSG and State Intelligence are top Law enforcement agencies of India. The subject person was the ADG of the Intelligence Bureau at the time of his death. He had 5 more years of service, in which any IPS officer gets DG rank. If the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG of a dead police officer (2nd highest rank), then I wonder what else might be eligible. It should be KEEP. :) --NeverTry4Me - TT page 23:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ADG of the IB seems notable enough, rank is similar to the Deputy Director of the FBI. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I think that notability is there once there is more information about what they did in various roles and what they were involved with.Gusfriend (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not meet notability guidlines. Starship SN20 talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG, and not sure of what SNG CapnJackSP is thinking about in their keep !vote, but unaware of any SNGs which say the deputy director a state agency is automatically notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per "the deputy director a state agency", I shall make it clear that, Intelligence Bureau is not a state agency, nor the subject person was deputy director. The subject person was Additional director general of police(2nd highest rank) of Intelligence Bureau, who died on duty, before his retirement. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Held what was essentially the highest rank in the Indian Police Service (the highest rank, not the head of, for the pedants - there is a difference!) and was deputy director of the Intelligence Bureau, India's national security and counter-intelligence agency. Clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. Also passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill case! GeezGod (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Star Mississippi 03:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protected to stop the sock disruption and allow this to come to a conclusion. If this gets relisted by a non-admin, feel free to ping me to extend the protection. Star Mississippi 18:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No, the subject does not meet the GNG (the vast amount of the coverage being around his death in an auto accident, a ONEEVENT); no, there is no notability criterion covering subordinate provincial police officials; and no, COMMONSENSE isn't a trump card that substitutes for an utter lack of any notability criteria upon which to hang one's barracks cover. At AfD, we rule on the notability criteria that actually exist, not the ones individual editors wish did. Article created by now-indeffed NeverTry4Me. Ravenswing 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability under the GNG; what sources are available that are significant are not independent or not reliable and vice-versa No indication of notability under any applicable SNG; appointed civil servants are not notable simply by virtue of their position exept in limited cases that do not apply here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 24 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. Some plausible sources were provided, but no clear consensus emerged on whether or not the sources are adequate to establish notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CARS24[edit]

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

All the references (including the Hindu Business Line, Financial Express and ET ones) in the article on this unlisted company are either interviews or funding/launch announcements. Unable to find any coverage independent and substantial enough for WP:NCORP through search engines, so bringing here. hemantha (brief) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

~~Comment~~ Keep found some Bloomberg [11] and Nikkei [12][13] coverage. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update to change to keep. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the Bloomberg and Nikkei links of Lerdsuwa above. Gusfriend (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think they are independent enough for WP:NCORP? Bloomberg article has "he said" for every para on the company (rest are about DST or general notes on India). Same with the latest Nikkei - there isn't a single para that's not a quote or a restatement of company line. I hit paywall for the other, but if it's the same as this, it's a routine funding announcement which NCORP explicitly bars. hemantha (brief) 10:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think this article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT. Pilaz (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TzarN64, can you explain why you believe this article needs to be kept? ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Hemantha. They are correct, sources are masquerading as journalistic pieces. Most of them (in fact, all of them) are coordinated PR work. It's high time for us to reassess these Indian media sources, especially the business news editons of WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP. - Hatchens (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: will not consider Nikkei Asia Review articles as independent ones because, it is the same group which manages Nikkei 225 at Tokyo Stock Exchange where the SoftBank Group is listed, the primary investor of CARS24.(proof). It is quite evident that WP:COI is overlapping all over and intentionally the information related to SoftBank has been omitted in the page. We're witnessing extremely smart Wikipedia editing. -Hatchens (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about this interview by NYSE [14], would it be considered independent? (Softbank might owns some stocks listed in US too but not sure about this.) I think the argument goes too far. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lerdsuwa: NYSE doesn't operate or fund any media news portal (unlike Nikkei). They have there own in-house news dissemination process and their Youtube channel is just a part of it. But, if someone wants to quote and cite a youtube channel or a video, then one has to read WP:NOYT essay and take a call accordingly because there are many caveats. -Hatchens (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP with reliable sources indicated by Gusfriend. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, volume of "coverage" often means an absense of quality references. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep informat enough with no advertising unlike many currently written corp pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talk • contribs) 2022-02-17T12:41:30 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCORP. This new article by Khaleej Times provides significant coverage. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 07:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article credited to "A staff reporter", with text like "CARS24 is revolutionising", 4/10 paragraphs being quotes of CEO and no indication they've talked to anyone else cisn't WP:INDEPENDENT enough for NCORP. Hemantha (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence of that article acknowledges that it is based on a company announcement. Here is the *exact* same article with the same photo published in a Gulf News. Here is the *exact* same article in GadgetVote and again the *exact* same article in GCC Business. Fails ORGIND therefore fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, none of the Keep !votes have put forward any references that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Can someone post the best WP:THREE references so they can be evaluated against NCORP please? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed mine to Keep, if it really matters that mine is a comment or keep vote. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that enough credible citations exists. I don't agree that announcements aren't acceptable. They would not be if it is copy/pasted as provided by a company or press release, but if it is reworded and contains info about the company other than an announcement, then it should be OK. These sources provided by prior editor Lerdsuwa seem good [15], [16] and [17]. Zeddedm (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to establish that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacknjellify[edit]

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

Despite the number of views there is a remarkable lack of any coverage on this channel/couple. There is no independent coverage to be seen, only mentions on YouTube and fan sites, and like their creation, which has been repeatedly found non-notable (Battle for Dream Island), this too doesn't meet inclusion criteria. CUPIDICAE💕 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was a click away from nominating this myself when I noticed it was recreated. I agree, after looking for evidence of notability I have found none, save for the views in the BFDI series, which isn't enough. ASUKITE 19:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 — Very non-notable. After a quick scan of 3 pages of Google, I found absolutely no reliable sources. Just a consideration. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 20:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search turned up zero independent sources whatsoever. Helen(💬📖) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non notable. As an aside, I wonder what is so compelling about the Dream Island series that every iteration of possible coatracks has been created for it? Battle for Dream Island itself has been salted, thankfully. --Kbabej (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no reliable sources other than very infrequent passing mentions. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unknown Channel which is not notable. And this is coming from a fan.

Jazzy Jazz Jr (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. BFDI may be popular, but the channel itself isn't exactly notable, Maybe have an article for BFDI itself, but there's not really any reliable sources. Also, if the Cary Huang article ever gets approved (which I doubt it will), why even bother. Washy (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (and Salt if this gets recreated yet again.) Per HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith.Also,I heard someone say this,and I might as well also say it but rephrased.Why even bother keep saying stuff about BFDI stand-alone,when we have Cary Huang?We might as well work on that instead because Cary Huang as an Article Might have a better chance…As long as we don’t just cite constantly with just YouTube.So I still vote delete,but I see this article turning into a redirect if Cary Huang is Approved to be able to become an article.

Edit:I checked the sources of this article,this article is ENTIRELY sourced by YouTube(As of 12:09 2/22/22) Changing this from Delete to Speedy Delete. Danubeball (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is not just about jacknjellify. It is about the OSC as a whole. Saying that the entire community (approx 2billion total views) isn't notable is just... Ehh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.102.207 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@67.175.102.207: Please see WP:COATRACK. --Kbabej (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with above. The publicity element to this is blatant. doktorb _words^deeds 21:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps redirect to Cary Huang if the draft gets accepted? Zelo101 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I changed my mind. Will be downloading this article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.102.207 (talk)

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 14:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veikko Huuskonen[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage of this individual. Only database coverage and such. This is not enough to pass GNG, which is a requirement under the sports SNG. Plus as a non-medalists at the Olympics he does not pass the inclusion criteria for Olympians either. I did find indcations there is I beleive a contemporary (ie alive now) musician with the same name, and there is an actor with this same name born in 1905, so there is no reason to think this would be the person people are searching for when they type in this name, so a redirect is not justified. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBOX as a five-time national champion, and winning bronze at a European event, per the additions made by JAAqqO. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing here still does not rise to the level of passing GNG, which is the minimum to keep articles. The sourcing is clearly not multiple sources that are indepdent of each other that provide indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure how competitive the Finnish championships were but a European medal shows sufficient significance and our encyclopedia would be worse if this got deleted. --Michig (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You are still not addressing the adequacy of sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plenty of hits searching the Finnish Newspaper Archive for the name (link to search, UI language can be changed from the top-right corner), but mostly in the Swedish language papers. Perhaps someone with better Swedish than mine can check them out. A ton more hits for what is essentially surname + "boxer" + "boxing" in Finnish ([18]). Unfortunately I don't have the time to assess these for depth of coverage at this point. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read Swedish. I was able to commence an expansion of the article, where the sources are plentiful to say the least. Significant coverage of a boxer would of course be articles focused on Huuskonen, describing how he boxed, style, etc. Bear in mind Swedish is the minority language of Finland, and the coverage in Finnish (which I don't understand at all, and the pdfs can't be machine translated) is many times larger. I will sift through the hits for coverage on his later life etc, but keep for now. Geschichte (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NBOX. There is not even a debate. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:07, 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. Speedy deletion, as blatantly promotional (speedy deletion criterion G11), and as substantially a copyright infringement of https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Inzpira&url=https://www.100x.vc/blog/inzpira-100x-investment-thesis-100x.vc-team-2021-startups (G12). Also close to the borderline for no indication of significance (A7). JBW (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inzpira[edit]

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

Small startup, just recently raised small amount of money. Does not have in depth significant coverage for WP:NCORP. Mvqr (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MC Chido[edit]

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

Advert of a non notable singer. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks indepth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:SINGER also. Celestina007 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note: There is a Sockpuppet investigation about the creator.
Delete Fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:02, 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 14:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primeshow Entertainment[edit]

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

Non-notable company, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet NORG. Only one film production has an article, which is yet to release. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced article about a company. While the company does get some incidental mentions in articles about particular films and features on Niranjan Reddy, WP:NCORP requires that notability is demonstrable through coverage about the company. AllyD (talk) 12:10, 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 redirect to Marist Brothers#Asia. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marist School (Marikina)[edit]

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

No significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marist Brothers#Asia where it's mentioned. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marist Brothers#Asia per SBKSPP --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Made In Baltics artists[edit]

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

Although sourced I don't see how this really helps outside of the Made in Baltics article. This is just another version of a category, suggest merging what content is needed and deleting this article. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP. Sources included are valuable to the encyclopedia, which a category does not provide. Most major labels have a similar artist list (see Category:Lists of recording artists by label). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rules clearly state you can not delete a list article because you prefer it as a category. Dream Focus 15:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a new label, founded in 2018, hence there is no length-of-article argument to justify splitting off separate discography and artists lists. The sources establish that the singles were released, and by the label; hence within the Made in Baltics article, these sources would potentially assist in establishing notability for the label. But it isn't a major label, in fact that article is very poorly sourced, with notability dependent, so far as I can see, on one group and one referenced award (other awards are listed but not sourced; if either sources for them or extended articles on the label itself exist, the situation may change, but a series of editors have judged the article as not making an adequate case for notability). In particular, there are not many artists in this list; it would fit very easily in a paragraph within the article on the label. (I also don't see any evidence of independently notable singles at List of Made In Baltics singles; have any done especially well in charts?) So that argument for having a list—many notable items—doesn't appear to obtain either. I think this should be a list within the label article, benefiting that article with its sources as well as its content, and with the title recreated as a redirect for those who search on it, and I would support doing the same for the longer discography article, too. At least until it does qualify as a major label, with both sections getting awfully long and with a lot written about what the label has contributed to music and to its artists' careers. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artists page should be added into the main Made in Baltics article. Gusfriend (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A standalone list from the parent article Made in Baltics is not warranted. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oving, Buckinghamshire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oving Villages Cup[edit]

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

Extremely obscure football tournament for amateur teams in a very specific small area of England. Found this one article (which calls it "the oldest soccer tournament you've never heard of") but that was it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these results seem to be almost all passing mentions or fixture listings in the Bucks Herald which hardly makes this notable enough for a global audience Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Global audience is not a policy, guideline or even an essay; if we had a page with that title, it would probably be about writing for a global audience, not deletion. If you're thinking of WP:AUD, it doesn't apply here; other guidelines have no such requirement (otherwise we would be deleting most articles about buildings, villages, and US state politicians). WP:ROUTINE would still be a valid reason for deletion. A865 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oving, Buckinghamshire. It would be a useful redirect as there are links from other articles, and is mentioned there. A865 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oving, Buckinghamshire as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oving, Buckinghamshire as plausible enough search term Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oving, Buckinghamshire per comments above, and redirects are WP:CHEAP SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oving, Buckinghamshire per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaa Deal[edit]

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

Unfinished film since 2012 whose failure is not notable per WP:NFF guidelines. Coverage is mostly announcements, press releases, and non-RS sites. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete the nominators points are valid, the article has little outside of music and cast, and all sources are from 2012 and are not truely related to the movie, more being leaks and general info about creation Im really bad at this (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the content added since the previous comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some quality sources but not enough. Also, we can't save a page for an unfinished film for 10 years. I agree with the nominator.--Art&football (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 10 years ago? Not meeting WP:NFF, at best, this should be a blurb on the producer or director's page, but not an article Ravensfire (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matrax[edit]

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

Sources provided are all just minor music publicity. I couldn't find any sigcov from a google search. Subject doesn't seem notable to me. Ficaia (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note AfD was never listed a daily AfD page, so I listed it on January 10, so it should not be closed until at January 17 TartarTorte 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the Juno nomination, I expected to find something about them. Tried limiting my search to .CA websites... I can't even verify what/when/if they were nominated for the award. Leaning non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to be an attempted promotion. Like the previous commenter, I can find no direct verification of their supposed Juno award; I suspect that the award was won by a song they produced or wrote and not by themselves. They have a fair number of credits attached to other people's works, but it appears that they have not graduated from lists of credits to significant coverage on their own. They're active behind-the-scenes guys but alas, too many steps away from their own notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:25, 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 Speedy delete (CSD G7). by Explicit (non-admin closure) —MdsShakil (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aich Mollah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Prodded, but only one of several issues raised was addressed. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Under-19 cricketers are not notable per WP:NCRIC. Originally, the article claimed they played List A cricket, but I can find no proof of this on Cricinfo or CricketArchive (both normally update within hours of a match concluding). If the article creator has an interest in Bangladeshi cricket, there are quite a few players here which need articles. StickyWicket (talk) 13:13, 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 Bengal cricketers. ✗plicit 13:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kaif (cricketer, born 1996)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCRICKET. --Michri michri (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like we don't class players who play in the Vijay Hazare Trophy as presumed notable anymore, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but in this case, there's a bit of coverage about him to meet WP:GNG such as this and this, and other matches for the search "Mohammed Kaif" + Bengal + cricket on Google. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those snippets are nothing more than a squad announcement and reporting of his brother's tweet; indeed they only exist because of that tweet. They do not constitute significant coverage, nor are they secondary sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the sources in reality refer to the same incident. You are marking the article as trivial and rather non-notable yourself, Lugnuts. -Michri michri (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the view of WP:GNG, He had significant coverage in several renowned online news portal where he passed this criteria and as for notable he must played at least one game on highest international level or domestic level, from the view of WP:NCRICKET where as he failed to meet this criteria. Fade258 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fade258: Please provide links to these sources (the "several renowned online news portal(s)") so that we can assess their content with respect to GNG. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258:, what you say is nothing but clueless and insignificant until and unless you convey the sources or citations here.
@Wjemather and @Michri. I am talking about those news portal which has been mentioned by Lugnuts. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258:, those are sheer mockery, both are connected to his elder brother and refer to the same incident indeed. A single incident can not make a person, irrespectve of his or her field, notable enough to meet GNG. Can you deny the fact? Michri michri (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see and now I am taking my hand out from this discussion where as two references provided by Lugnuts didn't pass the GNG. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, this is not GNG-passing coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May I frankly speak, all the sources related to this article except his Cricinfo profile are either directly or indirectly in a few cases somehow connected to his elder brother, The Sultan of Bengal, Mohammed Shami. --Michri michri (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing on this guy, then redirect to List of Bengal cricketers per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think in this instance the above presented sources carry enough weight to satisfy GNG. Can always revisit this article when he player has made more appearances, and with it more coverage. For now a redirect as suggested by Lugnuts is the best course of action. StickyWicket (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bengal cricketers Yeah I'm redirect on this one, not seeing enough despite what some others are saying for a GNG pass in the search I've done, and fails the updated guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is the point of redirecting with such an improbable search term? How would that be useful to anyone? Is he even mentioned in other pages where blue linking to his team list would be warranted? JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#KEEP. The fact that some coverage exists and there is a redirect target would be a reason to redirect. Mohammed Kaif redirects to another article Mohammad Kaif so an alternative has to be used. And yes there are links from other articles. A865 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, either to the List of Bengal cricketers or, as an alternative, Mohammed Shami - his brother. There are cases where we've redirected other family members to articles in the past. Despite the unlikely search, that preserves the page content - although much of the coverage reflects his family, it's entirely possible that there may be enough to warrant a standalone article at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:28, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kabeer Khurana[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Thsi is WP:ADMASQ, as evidenced by WP:CITEKILL/WP:BOMBARD

Moved back to Draft previously with this edit summary: "Praxidicae moved page Kabeer Khurana to Draft:Kabeer Khurana over a redirect without leaving a redirect: as per WP:PAID" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article should speak for itself, and this article does not provide any indication of what the subject is notable for.
- Maybe the author intends the subject to pass creative notability for a volume of short films, but only one of the titles, Suttabaazi, has its own article, and it and this BLP appear to be the beginning of a walled garden.
- This BLP has been moved back to draft space three times, once by User:Praxidicae and twice by User:Onel5969, and each time move back by the author without discussion. We can see that the author wants this BLP in article space. We can see that the author isn't interested in discussion.
- This article has been reference-bombed with 50 sources. The reviewers have no obligation and no plan to check 50 sources. I would ask the author to identify not less than three and not more than five sources, but the author clearly isn't interested in collaborative editing.
- Maybe the author should find a wiki that doesn't require collaborative editing.
- This is a content forum, and the author doesn't want to work on this BLP in draft space, and this article doesn't satisfy notability for article space, which leaves deletion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, also a case of UPE/COI editing, so salting would probably be a good idea given the creator's editing history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Fails GNG and NDIRECTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The article does not meet GNG or any other notability guideline. The fact that it was moved back to mainspace after being draftified three times by two different editors leads me to believe the editor is not interested in collaborative editing and will recreate this immediately, thus my salting suggestion. --Kbabej (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 03:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source College[edit]

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

For a school which is supposed to be "the first institute in Taguig, Philippines, that teaches open-source technology" it is reasonable that a reliable third-party source would at least report on this. However no such source could be retrieved. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is un-referenced, clearly promotional, and I couldn't find anything about the "college" (there's zero evidence in the article that it's an actual college or university) when I did a WP:BEFORE. So this clearly fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Let alone the general notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and a Google search turns up items about open sources being used in schools in general, though nothing about this institution. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable third party sources found during Google Search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this could have been suitable for a speedy deletion. There’s no references on the article, nothing independent on the web and it has very strong tendencies towards being an advert. Why else would someone write about a topic that no one knows about and there’s basically no proof of it’s existence? GeekBurst (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Technological University of the Philippines#Satellite campuses. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technological University of the Philippines – Taguig[edit]

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

Source is just presumably the student handbook, the university site, and probably original research. No WP:RS could be retrieved. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Technological University of the Philippines, where it is mentioned. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Technological_University_of_the_Philippines#Satellite_campuses where it is mentioned --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Technological University of the Philippines#Satellite campuses where it's mentioned. Not a notable satellite school in its own right. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fisher Valley College[edit]

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

Only sourced from primary sources. Only third-party source is a celebrity rumor mill article. No WP:RS could be retrieved. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article comes off like a badly written ad, is only referenced to primary sources except for the celebrity gossip website, and I couldn't find anything else about it. So this clearly fails the notability guidelines for schools and probably also the general notability guidelines to boot. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 10:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 of the 5 references are sites owned by the college, and there’s no other coverage I could. So it clearly fails notability on the basis of lack of coverage. GeekBurst (talk) 17:13, 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!} 05:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G.L.I.S.[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2017, no third party sources could be retrieved for this article about an international school. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HueMan1. Chompy Ace 10:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 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 redirect to List of Delhi cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Sharma (Delhi cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NCRICKET. Fade258 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 20 matches, but redirect if nothing can be found on this guy, despite playing 20 matches for Delhi, then redirect to List of Delhi cricketers, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of their 20 appearances across all three major formats, there has to be some coverage in Hindi sources. Might be worth pinging WT:IN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - will do. And I've updated my comment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Lugnuts knows the sports inclusion criteria require passing GNG. We have no sources here that show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers A reasonable career of 9 FC, 7 LA and 7 T20 matches, but fails the updated cricket guidelines. GNG is very difficult to gauge due to the more famous cricketer of the same name and nationality. There may be sourcing in Hindu or Delhi related sources, but given his career and the difficulty we've had in finding sources for similar Indian/Asian players, I'm happy with redirect here as a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers I couldn’t find any source which would indicate that he passes GNG as most news articles are about the other Mohit Sharma. He has played a considerable amount of matches so it should probably be redirected. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this article is really really about a non-notable player. Thousands of cricketers like these can be found in our country at the moment. Actually, I first tried to propose it for deletion but failed due to some error during the nomination process. Anyway, this page should be deleted and may be, may be Redirected to List of Delhi cricketers -Michri michri (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers per above; lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to justify a standalone article. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:09, 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 , which defaults to keep. There is no question that this article has been substantively improved during this AfD, and credit to all who have done so. However there remains a disconnect within and beyond this AfD about the volume needed to meet the significant coverage of the GNG, therefore there is no clear keep consensus. Star Mississippi 17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Fitzgerald (American football)[edit]

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

Draftify (or delete, in light of the convincing analysis of the situation by TheCatalyst) Articles plainly and blatantly fails WP:GNG at this time. The sources are A) 2 databases B) 2 trivial mentions. He does not meet any other actual inclusion criteria (NSPORTS is not an inclusion criteria in and of itself, as it clearly states that sports figures do not get exemptions from GNG, FAQ question no. 2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator closed the AfD as "Withdrawn", but that edit was reverted by another editor per WP:WITHDRAWN, as some other delete !votes were still outstanding. The nominator has since gone on a Wikibreak, so it's up to the closer to determine the nominator's position, unless they comment further.—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NSPORTS: conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Per the same, 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. And on top of that, you can't write an article which meets the other guidelines and policies (WP:NOR; WP:NPOV; WP:NOT) solely on insufficient sources like this. ~~You are clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.~~ RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per NSPORTS: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense wikilawyering. NSPORTS clearly states that the actual inclusion criteria is GNG. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. And clearly, "it is likely", not "it is guaranteed". You going for a very strict interpretation and ignoring the whole of the rest of Wikipedia policies is not helping. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, try and keep it WP:CIVIL. BeanieFan11 gave his !vote and is not clearly trying to make a point. I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search yet, so I'm witholding a !vote for now, but jabs like the ones you've made are unnecessary. Spf121188 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie moved an article from draft space to main space, after it had already been moved back from main space to draft space, without addressing any of the reasons or the issues. That's disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the version before it was last moved into mainspace, there doesn't seem to be any obvious indication that there were issues raised before.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather reckless to move a page without having looked at its history, or, after having done so, not having bothered to further investigate why. What happened is that Beanie moved this without addressing the issues (as they surely understand them - this isn't quite rocket science: an article which is only based on databases and trivial mentions is just not acceptable, as Wikipedia is neither a database nor a collection of trivial mentions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue with a reliable stats site establishing an SNG being met. For example, many politician stubs meet WP:NPOL by sourcing to election results stats that they were elected to office.—Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about "many politicians" or even the general case of articles being only sourced to databases. We're talking about this article. There is WP:NORUSH to create articles, and that includes taking the time to find proper sources if they exist, and not blindly assume an SNG establishes insta-notability-despite-GNG-not-being-met. It doesn't as it explicitly states itself. There is no exception from GNG for sportspeople (nor do I see how one could come to such a conclusion reading the guidelines as written), unlike for some other groups. Repeatedly presenting such database-stubs and ignoring any of the multiple issues with regards to the suitability of such articles is frankly disrespectful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful is an awfully strong word to use here... WP:AGF. But, I do understand your point. Spf121188 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply BeanieFan has promoted good articles, has Autopatrolled rights, and is a prolific good standing editor. Assuming good faith is a fundamental aspect of WP, and Beanie always acts in good faith. In no way is he being Pointy. Spf121188 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. It still doesn't absolve them from following policies about BLPs (which require better than trivial mentions or databases) or on what Wikipedia is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NGRIDIRON. What is POINTY here is PRODing and sending an article to AfD so shortly after its creation. There is no deadline here and nominating it so quickly does not allow for a deeper search for print sources, since this is a player who played before the advent of the internet. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Redirect to 1987 Minnesota Vikings season. Having only played in two games (and he doesn't even appear in stats for the games), this alternative to deletion is preferable. Could be something interesting stemming from his status as a replacement player during the player strike, but nothing beyond his PFR entry hurts the claim to notability. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- Etzedek24 makes a really good point. There is no deadline for AfD, and more searches can be conducted up since this player did play, and played before the internet. My !vote could change, but I'm erring on the side of Etzedek and BeanieFan. Spf121188 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a review of Newspapers.com only came up with three hits, all of which were transactional in nature: [19] [20] [21]. Note that two of those 3 sources are covering the same transaction. There is a complete lack of significant coverage of the player, both online and in print sources. Thus this fails WP:GNG. Regarding Etzedek24's comment, there is absolutely no deadline, but that applies to the creation and creator of the article. There is no deadline to create the article and take the time to find the relevant sources prior to moving to the Mainspace. But when it is moved to the Mainspace, the onus is on the creator to make sure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not on other Wikipedia editors to give them time to flush it out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spf121188 and Etzedek24, please take a look at the clippings above. I perused the first 100 results or so on Newspapers.com for the period from 1983-1988, including looking at specific dates in October 1987 when he played his only 2 games. Barely a mention and definitely no features stories. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007, two things. 1. Thank you for presenting your findings in a helpful, respectful manner. 2. I kept my vote open for this exact reason. I still believe there's a bit of noteworthiness, but I'll strike my vote given your findings. Spf121188 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gonzo. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability requires verifiable evidence, for which there is none. If sources may exist, then the article gets to be created when/if they are found, not before that. Avilich (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Verifiable evidence has been provided with the recent expansion. Whether that is sufficient I don't know, but the original concern of mine doesn't apply anymore. Avilich (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft as an alternative to deletion, to give the article creator time to find more verifiable sources. Spf121188 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonzo, or perhaps merge into 1987 Minnesota Vikings season. NSPORTS goes to presumption of notability for players who have played in a professional game. That presumption still has to be met. Absent significant coverage in reliable sources, which hasn't been brought forward as yet, it doesn't. I did some checking in newspapers.com myself and there's the sort of routine gameday coverage that you'd expect, but no in-depth profiles, and nothing much outside of Eastern Washington and Idaho. Playing a snap of pro football, by itself, does not mean you're notable. Mackensen (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why, as an encyclopedia, we would want to get rid of an article that meets our criteria of inclusion (NGRIDIRON). This person played several games in the National Football League—the highest level of the sport there ever was—yet we are discussing whether this should be deleted! I am astounded at this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because databases and trivial mentions are not encyclopedic, and NGRIDIRON is not a criterion of inclusion. The only thing that matters is that a topic has received significant attention from reliable sources. This is according to nothing other than NSPORTS itself (FAQ#5). Avilich (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our criteria for inclusion is not and never has been "played a professional sport". Rather, it is significant coverage about the subject, which playing a professional sport may suggest exists. I am astounded that such a concept of automatic notability is even considered, as we are not a mere database of athletes. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is the absolute minimum for getting articles on sports people. It is because of disruptive editing by the likes of Beaniefan11, and his refusal to even recognize the full text of the sports SNGs, that many of us have come to the conclusion that it is time to do away with the sports SNGs, because they are being used to try to turn Wikipedia into a sport stats page instead of an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnpacklambert, Please try to keep this conversation civil... That comment about BeanieFan really wasn't called for. Remember that we're all supposed to assume good faith. The comment below by Gonzofan is a good example of how to express these opinions in a civil manner. Spf121188 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that, I understand your concern, but direct these kinds of comments to the users talk page, again in a civil manner. Spf121188 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His losing patience is understandable. The mechanics of NSPORTS have been pointed out repeatedly in several occasions. Yet people are still throwing around "keep per NGIDIRON", or, even better, the classic "we're an encyclopedia, we can't delete things". Avilich (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Avilich, I understand that 100% and I mentioned that below my response. However, that still doesn't excuse personal comments. BeanieFan can be pointed in the right direction, such as you pointing this page out to me. Again, I understand the frustration, but we're supposed to remain cool when editing gets hot. Spf121188 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He participated in that discussion! Avilich (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BeanieFan11, I think one of the big challenges that we face when assessing these types of articles is that we all know in today's world, with the onslaught of sports-focused reporting and the internet, these types of players would have significant coverage. I'm sure we could find a handful of players since 2005 who played in just a few games but have significant coverage on them. It just comes down to how different sports is reported on in our connected world. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we should change WP:NAFOOT? I tried doing a Newspapers.com search, but the references I added were all I could find. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As several other editors have noted, this article doesn't meet GNG, but I don't think it meets the spirit of NGRIDIRON either. As the Times-News reference confirms, Fitzgerald only played in the NFL as a replacement player during the 1987 NFL strike. The replacement players weren't top-level players, since those players were striking, and most of them had no hope of making the NFL were it not for the strike. Some of them became notable through their play as a replacement player, and some were notable because of their college careers or their time in other professional leagues, but many of them were just mid-tier college players who were willing and able to play pro football on short notice. I don't know if it's worth changing NGRIDIRON to call out a single-season edge case, but the replacement players aren't all notable in their own right, and Fitzgerald doesn't meet the GNG on his own. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. I stand by my comments on NGRIDIRON, but I'm no longer sure how I feel about whether this article meets GNG or not. On the one hand, there are a lot more sources now, and the article is in a lot better shape in general. On the other hand, the sources are a little weak - maybe there's something from the Pocatello or Idaho Falls papers that just isn't online, but very few of the sources are substantial, and even the non-trivial ones are fairly short. I don't feel comfortable endorsing deletion anymore, but I'm also not all the way on the keep side yet, so I'm sitting out unless someone digs up more coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is are there sources out there beyond statistics of a person who meets NGRIDIRON. We have the article from the Times-News in the article. Trivial, perhaps, but from an independent and reliable source. I also found this article about the subject's high school coach in the Spokesman Review. The subject is the primary person interviewed in the article (and includes some biographical details about the subject). The subject is described as a leader of the Bengals defense. The subject is described as being invited back to camp in subsequent years. So, I think there are sufficient sources to merit an article. --Enos733 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one of these clearly contains only very trivial content about Fitzgerald. It might be SIGCOV of his high school coach, but notability is not inherited. Interview are not independent sources so are not usually accepted. "Described as leader of the Bengals (not the NFL Bengals, but some university [Idaho State University] team Bengals) defense" is A) a trivial mention as far as I can see (p. 23/28 in the PDF for those who want to spend less time checking that) and B) it's from a student newspapers... The final source includes some tidbits of information, but it seems like most of it comes from the subject's own mouth. The sum of "independent coverage in reliable sources" is thus essentially the following sentence from that last article:

Fitzgerald, now defensive coordinator at Lake City High School in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was good enough to be invited back for training camps in 1988 and 1989, though he never made the roster.

Sure, that's better than statistics, but if that's the whole of what we can say on this subject, he doesn't really warrant a separate page. Sufficient coverage (along with all the other similar players in his situation) can be given in 1987 NFL strike and 1987 Minnesota Vikings season. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think Fitzgerald said he had a roommate who often reeked of alcohol establishes notability... Avilich (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is not straight GNG, it is WP:NSPORT and specifically WP:NGRIDIRON. There is no doubt the subject played in the NFL. There is independent, reliably sourced information of the subject, beyond a database listing. This is why the SNG exists, to provide a presumption of notability in cases like this one (a presumption that can certainly be refuted, but rebuttable by showing reliably sourced material). We can piece more together, especially if we can find more from the subject's college and high school career (as seen in being nominated for conference player of the week, as of 2012 the subject being on several lists of top ten performances in Idaho State history [and this is without having online access to the Idaho State papers]). And, we must also understand why the SNG exists, it exists, in part because there are editors who want to know more about the players in professional athletics. These players are at the pinnacle of their sport, and are stars at the prep level. There are public details about transactions, salaries, and in many sports, more statistics than can be comprehended. Our community wants this comprehensive information. As editors we can do better, add more information, but there is no harm to project with keeping mini-stubs, like this one. --Enos733 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read NSPORT, did you?

Q2: 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. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions.

As for the sources you have provided, these are again trivial mentions (and no, being listed in ten different statistical categories without any further detail does not make these suddenly not be trivial mentions). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and no amount of special pleading (based on an opinion which is clearly at odds with that of the wider community) can exempt an article from having to follow that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Replacement players were hired as scabs during the NFL strike. While most "real" NFL players will almost always pass GNG, the replacement players are a special case -- though some day curiosity about the replacements may generate SIGCOV. I did find some additional coverage. E.g., here, here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an article on the replacement players would be a suitable redirect for guys like Fitzgerald. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Thank you for finding those! I'm surprised I didn't see any of that coverage in my search. He now (in my opinion) is a pass of both NGRIDIRON and GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing the search by geography sometime helps. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, just curious, do you plan to take a position on this AFD? I will note, of the 4 clippings you provided, three of them easily fall under the "Player was signed by team" genre (i.e. transactional), which usually doesn't go far enough to establish GNG. The other clipping (#2) would be more easily presented as a full article clipping (see here), which makes it easier to surmise that it is a feature article on high school football coach Don Anderson. The content that is presented is merely an interview of Fitzgerald, with everything he is saying being about coach Anderson. Again, I don't see that as enough to pass GNG, as interviewing past high school players of a coach who died would seem fairly standard and not be enough to establish the notability of the interviewees. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: The "replacement" player status makes me question the overall notability. There is some marginal SIGCOV (coverage of signings may or may not be SIGCOV depending on depth -- mere announcements, "no", but maybe "yes" if there are biographical details provided as well) but not enough to convince me to fight for this article. Idaho papers are scarce on Newspapers.com, and there may be more there. I am a fence sitter for now. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; I agree with RandomCanadian's assessment of the sources presented. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wading back in, the goal of any article is to develop a complete picture of the subject for our audience. For many athletes (passing NSPORT) there may not be that one feature length story (or that feature length story might only exist from a local or even an high school paper). What Cbl62 has found in those clips information about a) playing on a state championship team (where I found in another source that he caught a touchdown in the state championship game), b) coverage of his signing with ISU, b) indication that he played with the Vikings for parts of three years (which we know from other sources that the subject was invited to training camp) c) that he quit playing at Idaho State d) he was drafted by ew York in the World Football league and e) that he was second-team all Big Sky Conference in his junior year. To me, this is a comprehensive set of verifiable information painting a good picture of the subject, who played in the NFL. I recognize that if the subject did not play in the NFL with this coverage, this discussion would not occur. But that is the reason why a SNG exists - it recognizes that there is some real world interest in the subject and there "probably" is coverage (even if editors have to do some digging to find it). --Enos733 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that investigation - that synthesis of passing mentions - to be closer to building a secondary source than a tertiary source like Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Enos presents a fair case. It's just not enough to persuade me to keep. Catching a TD pass in the Idaho high school championship game doesn't add much for me. Nor does being drafted by the WFL. Nor does second-team Big Sky recognition. If he was not just drafted by the WFL but actually played a season in the WFL, that might tip me. Cbl62 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"synthesis of passing mentions" - yeah. That's what one would expect from someone making an original work. If nobody has bothered to do this before, it's an indication that this person is not "notable", i.e., that nobody has bothered to "make note of" them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, some of the sources (here and here) are more than just passing references. Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I've seen articles deleted with more convincing content than this; and significant coverage usually does not include routine, transactional "X was signed by Y" stuff. As I said earlier, WP:NOPAGE might be the wisest piece of advice here and it would be pertinent to find a relevant place where to cover this subject - even with these two short clips, there's not much more information than what is already in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet GNG per the sources presented above. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to the team article, if it preserved some biographical information as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work? Rather than delete this and rather than add bios to the 1987 Minnesota Vikings season, which would probably make it much too long, why don't we start an article titled, e.g. 1987 Minnesota Vikings replacement players, where biographies of players like Fitzgerald could be added? (Note: I would prefer if created that it only be used for those who meet the following: (1) Have not played in any other NGRIDIRON-passing league, (2) only played as a replacement player, and (3) have no coverage that is found to be SIGCOV) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, especially if there are multiple other cases like this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a WP:BEFORE, but it appears there are a few such as Frank Ori and John Scardina, and there are a number of currently redlinked players that would also likely be suitable for inclusion in the table. I think this could work. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep we currently have a consensus to keep nfl players who have played in at least one game. While that is being discussed and is under consideration for change, that change has not happened yet and may not happen at all. Until it does, we should stick with consensus. If it changes, then we should... also stick with consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't; WP:NSPORT states "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline", even if it meets the SNG. BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NGRIDIRON does not say that at all. And a scan of the page WP:NSPORT does not find the word "eventually" as you quote. To what do you reference?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NGRIDIRON is sub-guideline of WP:NSPORT. And you can find it at the top in Q2 of the FAQ. BilledMammal (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald: Even if you take NSPORTS very literally, it quite explicitly says "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Your argument is essentially "passes NGRIDIRON, therefore must be kept"... Obviously, that is not very convincing. Articles still need to meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holy smoke, buried deep two levels into drop-downs in a freaking header tag that's visible to users on desktop only? I seriously doubt that meets Wikipedia guidelines for consensus and peer review--especially since it is hidden text. Hiding text from a large number of users is just bush league song and dance. I don't dance. If it's really "consensus" stop hiding it. I submit that hidden text like that does not meet the consensus standard. I'm not budging.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Paulmcdonald: What I am quoting isn't from the FAQ. But the FAQ is part of the consensus, and it is widely followed. Even if you ignore the FAQ, the rest of the guideline is consistent with it, so there's no reason why it would be invalid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The quote you gave ONLY appears in the FAQ dropdown box in the header (at least that I can find). It does NOT appear in the body of the document. A simple CNTL+F and search for the string "eventually" of WP:NSPORT shows zero results and is easily confirmed. Nope. Not budging.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Paulmcdonald: meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. is not from the FAQ. And even if it were, you can ignore the FAQ all you want, it still is part of the guideline, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (or rogue editors) cannot overrule a well-established guideline. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You posted a quote that doesn't exist. I'm done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a small typo in the one they provided; the correct one is meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The two sources added after mine seem sufficient. I think it is clear that even though we have only found two good sources, more probably exist somewhere. If people still aren't happy, we should get rid of WP:NAFOOT. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: They aren't. See the following source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94564779/nfl-2/		Name and position mentioned while listing a group of players	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94564646/nfl/		"On the other end of the spectrum are MacDonald and former ISU free safety Jamie FitzGerald, neither of whom had signed a professional contract of any kind until they committed to the Denver Bronco's and the Minnesota Vikings, respectively, last week."	✘ No
https://www.nfl.com/players/jamie-fitzgerald/	NFL official site	Statistics	✘ No
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FitzJa20.htm		Statistics	✘ No
https://www.twincities.com/2017/09/29/vikings-desperation-was-on-display-in-nfl-players-strike-30-years-ago/	~ Over half of the coverage of Fitzgerald is a quote from Fitzgerald	"“I had gone to a big school compared to some of those guys,” said defensive back Jamie Fitzgerald, a rookie from Idaho State. “There was a guy from (Division III) Wisconsin-Whitewater (who didn’t make the team). I didn’t know if that was high school or what the heck it was.” Fitzgerald, now defensive coordinator at Lake City High School in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was good enough to be invited back for training camps in 1988 and 1989, though he never made the roster."	✘ No
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/dec/19/hall-of-fame-football-coach-don-anderson-dies-at-8/	Content relating to Fitzgerald is limited to quotes from Fitzgerald	Focuses on Don Anderson, not Fitzgerald; only independent coverage of Fitzgerald is "Jamie FitzGerald played for Anderson from 1981-83 and was part of the 1982 state title team. He went to Idaho State and played parts of three seasons for the Minnesota Vikings from 1987-99."	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. I'll strike for now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: Have you seen these two articles yet? They were not listed in the assessment table and appear significant enough to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, I was not aware of those articles. Notability is now much more likely. I'll avoid !voting for now though. I'm pretty tired. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't in the article, hence why I didn't see them. However, they are very short, telling us little, and appear to be WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage. I don't believe they meet WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, I do not completely agree with the source assessment table presented here. I do think that the sources from BeanieFan would be a significant source according to the GNG and the interview in the Spokesman would also meet GNG. That all said, I continue to believe that when a subject meets a prong within an SNG, in this case playing in the NFL, our evaluation of sources should err towards inclusion rather than trying to deletion. In this case, information provided by the NFL is helpful to building an article and the other articles do create a comprehensive picture of the subject and the subject's football career. That is, an SNG gives criteria for whom the community thinks is notable, and the requirement that there is sufficient sources helps ensure compliance with WP:BLP and other content policies. Fundamentally, I do not see how deletion of this subject with multiple sources helps our project (see WP:NOTPAPER). --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the sources provided "create a comprehensive picture of the subject". The only information we have about him is where and when he played/coached football. Literally absolutely nothing else. Per WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS, if the only thing we have is routine, almost statistical, reporting like that, then this is not encyclopedic material, as it is nothing but the equivalent of "simple listings without contextual information". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Source assessment tables" are a tool, but they are a tool based on the opinion of the editor that created the table. Please do not give undue weight to that opinion just because it's in a "table format" and looks like "fact" -- it's an opinion. One to consider of course, but just for what it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much place for "it's just an opinion" for most of those sources - the two which were not in the article when the table was done are maybe debatable (although very much on borderline on that too), but the rest are rather clear-cut. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the table: "This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor." the table itself issues the caution. Stating something as if it were a fact does not actually make it a fact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the assessment presented (which IMHO is quite right), you should explain so clearly and not vaguely dismiss it as mere personal opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have already done so quite well, there is no reason for me to repeat arguments per WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. The added references from reliable sources plus the SNG pass prove that the subject is notable in my estimation. GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93 Which of the above sources are SIGCOV? Of those presented so far, none is more than routine and unremarkable sports coverage RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, can you just stop it with the WP:BADGERing and straight up nastiness with which you consistently attack other editors? In this AfD alone you've gone after Paulmcdonald, BeanieFan11 & Bagumba beyond usual WP:CIVIL discourse. Additionally, The subject passes an SNG and has coverage that moves it beyond the database referenced entry that we are trying to prevent. Would I prefer to see a little more coverage, yes, but I am also taking into account that Fitzgerald played 35 years ago and referencing may be harder to find. GPL93 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it doesn't matter if they meet WP:NGRIDIRON; per WP:NSPORT, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And those sources have been provided... BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have just significantly expanded the article. See here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those sources indisputably fail WP:GNG; see the following source assessment table. If I missed a source that was added, please let me know and I will review it and add it to this table.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94735951/fitz/			Half a paragraph of coverage on Fitzgerald, saying that he had signed with Idaho State, and giving his height and weight	✘ No
https://arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-exponent/objects/exp-077-07-001-028.pdf	Published by the student newspaper of one of the teams playing	Student newspaper - does not contribute to notability WP:RSSM	Only mention is "Leaders on the Bengal defense includ�ing inside linebacker Ron Manu, an all Big Sky pick last season, tackle Kevin Hudgens (6-4, 268)and strong safety Jamie FitzGerald. Manu leads the team in tackles with 50 tackles while FitzGerald is second with 40 stop." most of which doesn't cover Fitzgerald.	✘ No
https://isubengals.com/sports/2014/3/3/FB_0303142010.aspx?id=150	?	?	List entry	✘ No
https://issuu.com/frankmercogliano/docs/2010_idaho_state_football_media_guide/117	Published by the Bengals	?	Statistics only	✘ No
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/09/08/Merril-Hoge-ran-for-two-touchdowns-and-caught-a/5826495000000/			Only mention is "Idaho State's Jamie Fitzgerald returned a punt 62 yards for another fourth-quarter touchdown"	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94978045/reno-gazette-journal/			List of players; no prose	✘ No
https://www.profootballarchives.com/playerf/fitz01000.html		?	Statistics only	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94736266/fitz/			WP:ROUTINE local (section is called "Local briefs") transactional coverage in a very short article; fails WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94735465/jamie-fitzgerald/			WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage in a short article (the section it is in is actually called "briefly"); fails WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect in that they all fail GNG, for [22] and [23] are SIGCOV (IMO). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked those; they were already marked as read from our earlier discussion. Added now. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am impressed with what has become of the article. WP:SIGCOV is debateable, but the fact that more sources keep coming up tell me that this subject is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the expansion work done since the AfD was started. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time of nomination, the article was a one-line microstub simply reciting that Fitzgerald played football for Minnesota and Idaho State. On February 14, after my initial comments and after all of the "delete" votes were cast, User:BeanieFan11 expanded the article substantially. It is now a decent Start-class biography with 15 sources. Two of those sources (here and here) are three paragraphs in length, providing biographical details. While such articles are at the lower end of what might be considered SIGCOV, there is no precise length requirement in SIGCOV. BilledMammal cites WP:ROUTINE as a purported reason to ignore these sources, but (a) they are not mere passing references or mere transactional notices, and (b) WP:ROUTINE on its face applies to events and not to biographies. Given that Fitzgerald did make it to the NFL (albeit as a replacement player), and given the fact that we have never previously deleted an article on a modern NFL player (Vainowski played in the 1920s), I opt to resolve the weight of the SIGCOV in Fitzgerald's favor and end up as a "weak keep" on NGRIDRIRON, GNG, and WP:IAR grounds. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: @Spf121188: @Etzedek24: @Mackensen: @Scorpions13256: @Bagumba: Asking you to give this as second look in light of BeanieFan's substantial expansion and addition of sources now totaling 15. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I wanted to respond to one specific part of your comment above. You state that two of the sources are three paragraphs in length, however looking at them closer, it is important to note that the first source you provided is actually 3 sentences long, just broken up into one sentence per paragraph and the second source is similar: it is four sentences broken up into 3 paragraphs. Both of those are still very clearly "Team X signed/drafted Player Y" transactional reports widely found in local newspapers and usually not enough to establish GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Cbl62, thank you for bringing this to my attention. And BeanieFan11, nicely done expanding the article. I initially did strike my vote, but I really do think Cbl makes a solid argument above. Spf121188 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's argument, frustrating to see valid sources dismissed due to WP:ROUTINE, which applies to events not biographies. NemesisAT (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I agree that the newly added coverage generally satisfies the SIGCOV requirements, if slimly. There may be a discussion that needs to be had about the behavior of the nominator (once back from their WikiBreak), both in here and based on their user page (which says The problem with Wikipedia? People who think that this is a sports fansite, and who think article creation is some form of competition with awards for creating more.. I have struck my above redirect vote. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second Etzedek24's sentiment's regarding the nominator. I found it rather disturbing to see how they brushed off Spf121188's defense of BeanieFan11's good faith editing and then essentially continued to attack BeanieFan11's editing. GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by my delete vote. Right now there are 15 sources in the article: 3 are straight databases (NFL, Pro Football Ref, Pro Football Archives), 2 are lists of statistics (ISU Bengals and ISSUU.com media guide), 1 is a student newspaper that only mentions Fitzgerald once in a full page article (Montana.edu), 2 are feature articles on other people with quotes from Fitzgerald, not about him (Twincities.com and Spokeman.com), 1 is a standard game report that only mentions Fitzgerald returned a punt for a TD (UPI.com) and the remaining 6 are clippings from Newspapers.com, each of which merely notes Fitzgerald signed with a team, was drafted by a team or is currently on a team. I just don't see it. I commend everyone here for pulling together an article from such scant sources, and I understand that this comes down more to a fundamental difference on how these bios should be treated. This article unfortunately is a microcosm of the larger debate. But looking past this larger discussion and just at this article, I just don't see it. If there is even one feature story that covered Fitzgerald, I will be the first to switch my vote. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and I end up a "weak keep", but you're giving short shrift to this and this which do not, as you claim, "merely note" that he was signed or drafted.

The Times-News piece includes the following biographical facts: (1) JF was selected by NY in the WLAF draft; (2) JF played two seasons for Idaho State in the mid-1980s; (3) JF was picked early in the fifth round with the 42nd overall pick; (4) JF was a "star" at Idaho State playing defensive back and returning kicks; and (5) JF received second-team honors on the all-Big Sky team as a junior.
The Spokesman-Review piece includes the following: (1) JF was a star at Gonzaga Prep; (2) JF signed a new 1988 NFL contract with the Minnesota Vikings; (3) JF was signed by the Vikings as an undrafted free agent during the prior year's players strike; (4) JF was released after the regulars came back to work; (5) JF hoped to play as a free safety, punt returner or on special teams; (6) JF played three seasons at Idaho State; and (7) JF quit in a dispute with Coach Jim Koetter before the 1986 season. Cbl62 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I see where you are coming from. Again, I think this comes more from a fundamental disagreement of what significant coverage means in the realm of these types of bios. I slightly dismiss both of those sources due to the type of article they are. Looking broader at each newspaper page, each one of those articles are news briefs, or brief staff reports usually focused on local items of interest. For me, these fall below significant coverage. As you note, they are definitely great for capturing biographical details, but when used as the primary means of stating a topic is notable, they just don't do it for me. Again, if you showed me one feature story on this topic, I would throw in my support for keeping this article. But from what I see right now, it appears that the article is pieced together from brief mentions here and there. Nothing significant, with the coverage being minimal, at best. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect your position. This one was a close call, and I also respect and value the rescue effort undertaken by BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, the respect is mutual. Keep up the good work :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, per the sourcing and improvements to the article since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gonzo_fan2007. In short, I don't think any of the sources I can find constitute "significant coverage" of the subject as its defined at WP:SIGCOV or how it seems to typically be understood around here. The most substantial coverage is the two newspaper clippings Cbl62 posts just above, one in a section of a column titled "Briefly" and the other in a section titled "Local Briefs". These seem like the absolute minimum amount of coverage a subject can receive beyond a directory listing. To me, that's just not enough to be "significant". Ajpolino (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been significantly expanded since the start of the discussion and additional sources have been brought forward after several users cast their !votes. Additional discussion on whether those sources contribute towards WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG would be helpful in discerning a community consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A difficult call, but there's enough to build an encyclopedic article out of the WP:THREE best sources Times-News, Spokesman Review, and Pioneer Press with the other sources filling out details. Meets WP:GNG, albeit barely. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three you give, the first one is plainly a trivial mention and the last one is clearly about another person and the vast majority of the information about Fitzgerald is directly from Fitzgerald (who is not even the main focus). That leaves only those which are at the absolute very best marginal (given their routine nature). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Sorry, I linked the wrong Times-News article (meant to link this one which has a little more biographical information). I don't know if this will move the needle at all for you, but if a non stub article can be written about a subject that meets an SNG (supported by reliable sources) then I'm for preserving it when possible. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete still not significantly covered to meet GNG. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be okay to remove the bolded part? You already voted above. NemesisAT (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding needs to be removed, lest it be viewed as a second delete vote by the same editor. Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: Are you declining to remove the bold? Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Sorry, didn't see the ping until today. The label Bagumba put under this is sufficient to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Therapyisgood (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The 2nd sentence of the opening of WP:NSPORT very clearly states "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." That "or" is the key. Reading through comments it seems multiple editors are treating the "or" like it says "and". Per WP:NGRIDIRON "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the 1960s American Football League, the All-America Football Conference, the United States Football League." Per his Pro football reference page he played two games in the NFL in 1987. So we have a reliable source saying he played two games so per everything I've mentioned, it's clear the article should be kept. However, there's no evidence he played in 1988 or 1989 so that part does need to be fixed.--Rockchalk7 17 23:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point. The main page of NSPORTS is clear. The fact that it seems to contradict itself between its lead and the Q2 of the FAQ is a conversation for the sports notability page. What's clear here is that reliable sources prove that the subject meets the SNG. Otherwise, if everything must meet GNG eventually, why even have SNGs? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, the subject passes WP:GNG based on the sources referenced above. Cbl62 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:HEY and the subject passing both the SNG of WP:NGRIDIRON and also WP:GNG after the great expansion work by BeanieFan11 which is very commendable. I can only hope that other editors can see his editing and model their own to work on expanding articles and adding, rather than trying to tear down systematically. --SuperJew (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above quite a few times (and this is not the only place I've seen this recently), the nominator RandomCanadian seems to be WP:BADGERing any users not voting or commenting in the way he'd like, as well as reverting expansion edits by BeanieFan11 using rollback/counter-vandalism tools. I'm not familiar enough with this process, but might this require some admin intervention? --SuperJew (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Answering to pings (as here) is not badgering; and if you can't be bothered to read WP:ROLLBACKUSE, specifically the part where it says The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary., then that's none of my problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NSPORTS and GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:07, 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. Somewhat procedural, as a blocked puppetmater, and by the fact that the article never had a snowball's chance anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Not directed any notable film. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 07:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No evidence of meeting NDIRECTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited from the available news references. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: the creator of this article has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. A previous draft by the same editor (under a different account) was already deleted, and a draft originally created by two accounts claiming to be the subject is also present in the deleted history. Admins can see the contribs at Draft:Neeraj Singh. I have not deleted the article per WP:G5 because of contribs from others, but if deleted this title should be WP:SALTed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Boulet[edit]

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

Non-notable runner. It seems that he is married to a notable runner, Magdalena Lewy-Boulet, but notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT as not having competed on the highest level of his sport. Geschichte (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled about the article but couldn't find any independent secondary reliable source (sport Tv, newspaper, radio) and coverage at him. So has fail WP:SPORTCRIT. Katobara (talk) 12:48, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeisha Marion[edit]

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

The individual seems to be non-notable. The six sources in the article each appear to be paid, to come from unreliable sources, or to be primary-source interviews--none of which contribute towards meeting WP:NBASIC.

AccessWire is a public relations wire service.
Face2Face Africa is owned by a marketing firm.
"Disruptors Magazine" seems to be a contributors blog, a-la-WP:FORBESCON, though potentially with more paid content.
LA Progressive is a political group blog, and the post is marked at the bottom as sponsored content.
Khaleej Times is an unbylined extremely primary source interview.
This is 50 seems to be written by Hardcore Flava, which appears to be a fake name.

Trolling through google, I found a labeled opinion piece (looks like a Forbes Contributor-style situation) in Entrepreneur that isn't written by a journalist. I also found a piece by "The Daily Front Row" that is both unbylined and an extremely primary source interview.

The current status of the page is that it is a stub that comes off as extremely advertorial--half of the two sentences are dedicated to labeling her as being among the top female producers in her industry without any real support from RS, while the infobox "occupation" field feels like I am reading part of a LinkedIn page.

For the reason that Marion fails WP:BASIC and all other notability criteria for living people, I suggest that we delete this article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, the sources are awful, and looking at her work as an author, there seems a bias towards self-publishing in places that offer no quality control (e.g. CreateSpace). There is nothing in the current one-line, one-photo-and-a-load-of-links article that is in any way salvageable. Elemimele (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing. Her work as a writer is not turning out significant works for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of paid PR, but nothing in the way of RS to support an article. --Kbabej (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Witt (runner)[edit]

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

Non-notable runner. Participated in collegiate events and (some) professional events with no significant victories. Did not set any records. Natg 19 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching on google for him yields little-to-no significant coverage. One would expect that, given his age, there would be online coverage if he were truly notable enough to bass WP:NBASIC. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a fairly "run-of-the-mill" runner. BD2412 T 07:09, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miko (anime and manga)[edit]

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

Topic is not notable enough for a standalone article (note: proper titling for this article would be Mikos in anime and manga). The situation is comparable to other anime/manga stock character types that also exist in real life, like idols, maids, otaku, etc. The appearance of miko in popular media is worth a mention at the miko article, but nothing more. — Goszei (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into miko and delete per nom. Contents that does not overlap with the main topic should be summarized into a section, probably named "In popular culture". NasssaNser - T 10:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A large amount of text are unsourced. The section "Works in which miko appear" constitute a simple listing and should not be kept. NasssaNser - T 10:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to Miko. Sections that are supported by sources can be added to a "In popular culture" section in the main article. This is not an independently notable topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per below. Sources in the article are either redundant with the main article or not reliable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is this a needless WP:SPINOUT article from the main topic, but I'm not actually seeing anything worth merging, since the bulk of information is entirely unsourced and likely WP:OR. The only actual real sources here are being used for the first sentence, which merely describe what a Miko is in real life, and is copied verbatim from the first sentence of the main Miko article. The remaining parts of the article are either unsourced, or use completely ineligible sources like "some anonymous forums". As there is no content that should be merged, and I don't find this to be a particularly likely search term for a Redirect, deletion seems the most appropriate option here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd agree with the merge proposal, except Rorshacma pretty much hits the nail on the head. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this can be cleaned up. If there's any reliably sourced information within this article at all, then I'd support the merge - but the only 3 sources consist of: Groemer, 28.; Aston, 101; and North-China herald, 571, which are vague references at best - ones I haven't the faintest idea how to access, much less verify (google produces no results, and just a last name/series of words and a number isn't much to go off of). I have no confidence in any of this information meeting guidelines. I do feel for the editor, but this was just a bad article to pick to translate - the original JP Wikipedia article has 0 references, just those 3 explanatory notes, reinforcing the appearance of WP:OR. Canadianerk (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Seeing Canadianerk's comment, I conclude that this article is likely WP:OR with no contents worth keeping. NasssaNser - T 01:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Canadianerk nailed it on the head. This article is poorly sourced, and the sources that are there are a last name and a page number, making it nearly impossible to find out if the source is reliable, verify the information, check depth of coverage, etc. While there are many articles related to anime and manga that need translation from the Japanese Wikipedia (see the request pages), this isn't one. Link20XX (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there are external references that refer to the group in popular culture as with Ninjas in popular culture, this will end up being listcruft. This should already be covered by the Miko article in general. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that making a category for Miko in anime and manga would be okay. I just don't see an article yet for this. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category for Miko in fiction at Category:Fictional miko. Link20XX (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Sachdev[edit]

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

Pure PR. Even the Times of India ref is written as Pr, as can be seen by reading it. Most of the others are similar. The item in Entrepreneur she wrote herself. The NYT articles is about her sister--she's just mentioned in a few words. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sigcov could be found in Hindi as well, subject is only mentioned here and there, which is expected for a celebrity's non-notable relatives in India. Subject has almost zero notability by Wikipedia standards. Java Hurricane 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, a limited to English search turns up not much else. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ManaliJain (talk) 05:14, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dale A. Martin[edit]

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

Non-notable regional businessman. This profile is poorly sourced, and contains neither credible assertion nor evidence of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "In 2020 he was awarded the Grand Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria. In 2021 he was made a Commander's Cross of the Hungarian Order of Merit.". Probably the most ridiculous AfD nomination I have seen in over 18 years on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You probably haven’t looked at many AfD nominations, then. I suppose your argument is that those awards satisfy WP:ANYBIO, but I rather doubt it. (I have not evaluated sources for other claims to notability - you would expect a CEO of Siemens Hungary to have some press coverage.)

The Hungarian order of Merit (Magyar Érdemrend) comes in many grades. From [that source], I found [24] Dale A. Martin a Magyar Érdemrend középkeresztjének polgári tagozatának kitüntetését veheti majd át személyesen a koronavírus elmúltával, which machine translations have a hard time with but I assume the középkeresztjének part is translated by "commander’s cross" in the English article. There is an hu-wp article about recipents at that level which shows 20 to 40 recipients per year. That is hardly a well-known and significant award or honor - see for instance that MILHIST discussion which argued that only the highest grades should be counted. Even without grade considerations, that site seems to indicate that the order of merit is not the highest civilian distinction in Hungary.

For the Austrian one (Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria), the sourcing is not great but I found that facebook post from an official source. The transcript says Am 23. Juli 2020 erhielt Dale András Martin, CEO von Siemens Ungarn, das große Ehrenzeichen für Verdienste um die Republik Österreich (...), which refers to the 8th rank of the decoration ("Grand Decoration of Honour" in the English article). From the de-wp article, one can find a handy list of all recipients (in 2012), ctrl-F for "Großes Ehrenzeichen" returns more than a thousand hits. So, not all that selective either. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reply Come on, Andy, dial back the over-the-top rhetoric here. These awards are handed out to lubricate the social machinery by flattering business and political types. The guy's a senior honcho in a local branch of a major multinational, they want to reward him for some business deals, so they give him a low-level gong to hang on his dress suit. (I seem to recall a medal The Saint wore, which he demurely said he'd been awarded for rescuing a Greek royalist's laundry from the dry cleaners.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This just about scrapes a WP:BASIC pass based on the following sources 1 2. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asianet Satellite Communications[edit]

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

One reference in one paragraph in one article. Other is not reachable and another just yellow page, notability or importance not proven. Update: A contributor has provided sufficient sources and I propose to keep the article. Greatder (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 3 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!} 06:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched and found more news in Google. I have updated the page. They have an IPO coming up. Chelokabob (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable, I support keep then. Greatder (talk) 08:48, 19 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!} 05:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having an upcoming IPO doesn't necessarily make a company is notable, they need to pass WP:NCORP which this does seem to. For instance, Regional Language Television in India: Profiles and Perspectives dedicates an entire page to it. The SAGE published journal article The Indian news media industry: Structural trends and journalistic implications makes somewhat extensive references to it and indicates that it was the parent company of Asianet Star Communications and Asianet News Network before its restructuring and breakup between three seperate parties, so a lot of older publications refer to it as simply "Asianet". I'll have to dig more into it but at this stage this is clearly both notable and historically significant. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:00, 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 keep. ✗plicit 13:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Zhukova[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Brief search for significant coverage mainly turns up various tabloids. Russian sources cited are state-owned (AiF.ru is owned by the city of Moscow), and as such are not independent in criminal matters. There is a brief mention in a book from a niche publisher specializing in "True Crime | Thriller | Mystery | Sci-Fi/Fantasy | History | Horror | Memoir". Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC) edited 04:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google turns up a fair bit more than that. I'll leave it to others to determine whether she's notable, or just newsworthy. Star Garnet (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree that Lenta.ru and Gazeta.ru are unreliable for this specific case, because it does not have any specific political aspect to it that would necessarily make them unreliable based on being owned ultimately by state-owned Sberbank. Looking for other coverage I see that it the case was covered in the Ukrainian media, in multiple sources. The non-tabloid, state-owned outlets Vesti.ru and RIA-Novosti also covered the story. Since this is a purely domestic, criminal story, there is no reason to believe that these sources will be unreliable on this topic. We should always keep in mind that different sources are reliable for different things - I would not rely on any of these sources for information about Russia's aggression in Ukraine, but for a simple criminal story I see no reason not to. Even without this, the Ukrainian coverage (one of Zhukova's victims was Ukrainian) shows notability by itself. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. Serial killers are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 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 no consensus. because clearly there's still no broad consensus on the distinction between NSPORT and GNG and we can't keep doing this AfD by AfD. I don't think another week is going to bring us any closer to consensus where we're hampered by both accessibility and language. Star Mississippi 17:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aage Høy-Petersen[edit]

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

No indication of notability; no significant coverage was provided or able to be identified. An additional source was available on the Danish Wikipedia, but it is neither reliable nor does it include significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-medalists do not meet our inclusion criteria, and there is no indication of sourcing that meets GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Note that while he didn't medal in the 1924 Olympics, he did medal in 1928 - although of course that isn't sufficient to keep in the absence of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although he did get a medal in 1928, we need actual sources passing GNG to justify keeping articles, and we do not have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While still cleaning up the last-place finishers and non-finishers of the Olympics, who can be said not to have achieved anything, it's pretty extreme to suddenly start sweeping over the Olympic medalists in the same go. This counteracts the centralized discussion, because the presumption of notability is exceedingly stronger. Granted, GNG is ultimately the core policy but the above challenge that GNG can't be met here is unconvincing. PS. You don't need to ping me to reiterate that you failed to find sources. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So in fact you admit that we have no sources that fit our inclusion criteria at all, but still want to keep it without sources. What sources have you found that meet GNG? This article has existed on Wikipedia for over 14 years. That after that time we should keep an article with no GNG passing sources just because they might show up in the future seems a truly odd argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do admit I haven't checked, because I don't have access to a Danish newspaper archive, nor the time to do every WP:BEFORE task that others have not done. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - We cannot keep an article just because we think there might be sources, Verifiability means we must have the sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which parts of the article cannot be verified? Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports database. Articles are to be based on signigicant coverage, not bare entries in tables.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 14 years is more than enough time for someone to have found GNG sources. JoelleJay (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear whether Danish sources have been searched for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - digitised Danish newspapers are freely available after 100 years, so up to 1922. After that, access is apparently restricted to academic researchers located in Denmark: see here, here and here. So accessing coverage for 1924 and 1928 would not be straightforward. Ingratis (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingratis What is the coverage of pre-1922 Olympic medallists in Danish newspapers? JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Ingratis (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the presumption of notability rests on the presumption that Danish newspapers gave SIGCOV to Danish Olympic sailors, the latter ought to be demonstrated first. Otherwise we'd be stuck holding on to a microstub for another 2 to 6 years until sources are available that may not even have sufficient coverage for GNG anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's equally a presumption that there is no information, whatever earlier newspapers may or may not contain. There is NO time limit and Wikipedia is NOT pressed for space - I see no problem in waiting, especially since this is not just an Olympic competitor but an Olympic medallist, and not in a team event either. Ingratis (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre was a team event - he was one of three crewmembers, in addition to the helmsman. And while there is WP:NODEADLINE, there is also no deadline for us to have a deadline - would you be willing to compromise on a soft-deletion (turn into a redirect), and if sources are found in six years time when 1928 is publicly available the article can be easily restored? BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake re team! Because this is a medal winner, whether in a very small team or on his own, as I wrote below I would rather keep until it's possible to search more meaningfully for sources, which are likely, if they exist, to be in contemporary Danish newspapers, although not excluding the possibility of others. Until such a search can be made the presumption of notability remains, and as Geschichte has already said, it's a very strong presumption for a medal winner. I agree that even in 2028, should we reach it, there is no fixed deadline for such a search. Redirecting rather than deletion is surely in any case the default for Olympic stubs. Ingratis (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a proper determination of whether Olympic medallists in particular sports in particular eras receive the requisite coverage in their home countries to meet GNG. It has always been presumed based on the amount of coverage they get now. Because this presumption has not been validated, and because NSPORT says if an SNG but not GNG is met For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics, the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate why there is very strong reason to believe SIGCOV exists in these Danish newspapers. It is not enough to assert WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre, if this article is not kept - WP:ATD. But given the time restriction on Danish sources above, I think it should be kept until they have become available. I have to say, echoing Geschichte, that I'm surprised (and not in a good way) to see an article on an Olympic medallist nominated for deletion. Clearly there was no real point whatsoever to the interminable NOLY RfC. Ingratis (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per winning a medal at the Olympics, meets NOLY. And I'm sure he would probably meet GNG as well if we were able to access Danish newspapers from the period he competed in. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot presume GNG based on sources you cannot describe and just pull out of thin air. GNG is met by finding actual sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources that likely have coverage of him will not be available for a few years, then I believe GNG can be presumed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is backwards. If the sources will not be available for a few years, we should wait a few years to create the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite what is written above it appears the subject does meet the criteria at WP:NOLY. NemesisAT (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All sports SNGs still require the subject to meet GNG, and no one has presented even one source that would show meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kolaboy (Musician)[edit]

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

The first reference for this article contains only a trivial mention of the article's subject. The second reference is to a dead link. The third reference is an interview which WP:INTERVIEW indicates can be added to an article that otherwise has lots of substantial references in it. The third reference looks like a press release for a new single, and the last reference is a brief discussion of that same single that mentions that the subject is "featured" on the song, which is sung by another party. The only one of these sources that includes any in-depth discussion of the subject is the interview, and that alone doesn't make a case for notability. A Google News search shows scanty results, mostly from websites making announcements about musical releases, none of them discussing the subject in depth. Given this, and without some more substantive in-depth discussion of the subject in reliable, published, verifiable, secondary sources, I am not sure we can retain this one. A loose necktie (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, plus it's a promotional article by a UPE/COI editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - I have edited the second reference link and it's working now, you can google search about this artiste Kolaboy he is a notable artiste with verified social media accounts, I will keep on improving the article, thanks Samnaija (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ok, first of all, this AfD is a giant mess. Between the inappropriate off-site canvassing attracting a horde of SPA votes, and major changes having been made to the article in the midst of the AfD, it is nearly impossible to find a consensus here. There is disagreement on whether or not the software is notable, but I can't find a clear consensus one way or another. The keep voters have shown that there are books written about how to use Zabbix, which at least provides a presumption of notability per WP:NSOFT. Additionally, there seemed to be clear agreement that the state of the article at the time of nomination was bad enough to delete it in the spirit of WP:TNT, however the article has already been practically rewritten during the course of the AfD, so deleting it with the intention of rewriting it would seem pointless now.

My advice would be to continue the current efforts to improve the article, and reassess in a month or two. If there are still notability concerns after reasonable efforts to improve the article, then bring it back to AfD and hopefully have a fresh discussion that is not tainted by canvassing. I would also swiftly apply a trout to riffic and strongly encourage them to read WP:CANVAS again to ensure that they are fully familiar with guidelines surrounding canvassing. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zabbix[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

voting for this AfD was actively canvassed off-wiki:
- https://www.reddit.com/r/zabbix/comments/swoyid/the_wikipedia_article_for_zabbix_is_up_for/
--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this thread too and it seems to rather prefer to attack User:Beetstra instead of wanting to understand the reason for the removal request.

Furthermore there has been an addition to that thread in which again the focus is on the who and how instead of the why the AfD was triggered. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is completely self serving promotion. No independent references to show notability. Most of this article is its own history, its own features and its own development. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I went through the long history of the article and noted edits by many single-purpose IPs and named accounts. I have thus also tagged the article with some applicable tags. None of the versions I checked had proper references, but many versions were even more spammy/promotional than the currently standing versions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zabbix is more popular than Nagios and is also open-source. Ridiculous proposal. https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/it-infrastructure-monitoring-tools/compare/nagios-vs-zabbix Sin2x (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sin2x: All based on customer voting and comments. Do you have also reliable sources that state that? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: What kind of reliable sources? It's an open-source monitoring system, how exactly are you going to assess its usage and popularity if not from customer experience? Even GitHub has more stars for Zabbix than Nagios:

https://github.com/zabbix/zabbix

https://github.com/NagiosEnterprises/nagioscore

You, on the other hand, have not yet stated your reasons for proposed deletion based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion Please do.

----

With regards to notability: On one of Kaspersky pages they write "This monitors and sends extensive information about the SVM's health status to third-party SNMP monitoring tools like Zabbix and Nagios.". So when this well known security company set out to give examples of monitoring software that can be used together with their offerings, Zabbix is one of two concrete examples they give.

And how popular are each of those? Looking at job offering in England, in the same order of magnitude:

Hlovdal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZDNet lists Zabbix and it is on the list of reliable sources: https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-network-monitoring-tool/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources Sin2x (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that is a good one, I added this in the article. Larcorba 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sin2x: not in depth, but that is certainly a start. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"When not to use the deletion process - Articles that are in bad shape" This applies to this article. Hlovdal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"If an article is beyond help, it should be deleted, but try fixing the POV first." This article is not beyond help, thus deleting it is wrong. Hlovdal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator should be following WP:BEFORE. Notability means that reliable sources exist and this would have apparent if they had done a cursory search beforehand. Zabbix meets the WP:GNG. riffic (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, this is notable software. There are books written for its use which satisfies WP:NSOFTWARE's inclusion criteria. riffic (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Riffic and Hlovdal: Combining remarks because you are answering in confusing threading. Github is not a reliable source for being notable, that Kaspersky writes that it can send out data, e.g. to SNMP monitoring tools like Zabbix does not make it notable, it is just a fleeting mention. This article is not showing any of this, all I see, and find on Google in its top 20 results, is self serving promotional stuff. Then I look at the history and I see massive IP editing with the first/major IP I check being a Zabbix IP. You give me a link to a list of books about Zabbix, the first two written by Patrick Uytterhoeven, the second by Luciano Alves … who both work for Zabbix. Again not independent. So yes, I looked WP:BEFORE, and all I see is self promotion, self-published, WP:COI (or better: editing in blatant violation of m:Terms of Use), and in line with that efficient SEO. Are there any sources that are reliable and independent of the source? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with Nagios is just marginally better in terms of sourcing (and also there I have troubles finding independent sources), the prose is similarly advertising and self serving, and also there editors were editing in violation of m:Terms of Use. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay heed to this essay on the notability of software, "Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, be sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations. One way to do this is to perform a Google books, Google news, or Google scholar search for the app in question if relevant. Simply stating "non notable" and "unreferenced" is not a valid rationale for deletion" (WP:NSOFT), this is 20 year old software with a large userbase, and many written and audiovisual works documenting its notability in the industry, ranging from books, youtube videos, conference talks, white papers, installation tutorials, et cetera. The burden of proof on showing non-notability falls upon you, and you have just not done that. riffic (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example (I spent literally 30 seconds digging this up): IDG's Network World reviews the application: https://www.networkworld.com/article/3304253/zabbix-delivers-effective-no-frills-network-monitoring.html riffic (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Riffic: I did explain above that the first 20 results in Google are all SPS. The first 2 books are not independent, the two writers I mention can be shown to have a very close connection to Zabbix. I looked, and I did not find independent sourcing. Until now all that all of you have shown me is a rather marginal list of programs where this one appears. If it is so easy to find as you say, you can show me a long list of truly independent, and reliable sources that I have obviously missed. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please move my comment back to its original threading position and do not move my comments again. Its placement was intentional. riffic (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a few more book sources. I apologize these are just going to be links to the Google Books entries, I don't have time to create proper citations:

Next time you run a notable software app through the AfD process, please follow WP:BEFORE or just use WP:PROD so we can discuss the notability beforehand. This is a huge waste of time for everyone involved and the software is notable. riffic (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, added them and a reference to Zabbix notable customisability to the page in the community section. Larcorba 20:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Patrik and Luciano (Edit: I mistaked Luciano, he does work for them now) do not work for Zabbix SIA, Zabbix LLC or any other Zabbix subsidiaries. I as well do not work for Zabbix directly, but I do work for a Zabbix partner. I am one of the authors of the Zabbix 5 and upcoming Zabbix 6 cookbook, which we fully write in our free/spare time. We supply these books to the community, because it is important that the product has these community resources available. We are talking about a 100% free and Opensource product, where the purchase of any support, consultancy or training is fully optional, thus community resources like books, blogs, Reddit and even Wikipedia are important. It all supplies any community users with a place to find information about the product. Most resources you will find are written and/or supplied by the Zabbix community. Definitely not a good thing to remove the Wiki page, and even if this was paid software like PRTG or Datadog there are Wikipedia pages. Deletion seems completely unjustified. As well, maybe this helps as an independent resource of popularity: Google trends Larcorba 07:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) — Larcorba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Made some changes to the page, hopefully this helps! Larcorba 11:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Patrik and Luciano, like you, work for Zabbix partners. Do I have to work out the dependence of these writers explicitly? And Popularity != Notability. Please provide truly independent (and reliable) sources showing notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful? You doubled the number of references that solely rely on the subject's own words from 22 to 44, and not supplied a single truly independent source. Let alone an independent reliable source.
As per below for user:5GZPPwkICWU, may I know how you arrived at this AfD at your very first edit? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All claims added by Users or the Zabbix team that were either vague, unjustifiable or simply not true have been removed from the article. On top of that, quoting sources like the official documentation of a product is definitely a reliable source, especially in the Opensource software community. As well, I included a new section including community resources to guide the community to resources there. @Beetstra: As of now, I think you are finding yourself with no other people to back up your claim as to why this page would still need removal. For all we know you might be the user of another product claiming that the page needs removal simply out of spite. As per the Wikipedia community guidelines we would need an independent third party to review, otherwise the discussion will simply be closed after 7 days and the page will remain as is. Now to stay on the topic of the page, if you have any additional constructive feedback or suggestions I would be happy to make some more changes to the page. Larcorba 14:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Larcorba: They are reliable to a certain extend indeed. They are however not independent, and that is needed for showing notability. The article is still completely self-serving. The discussion will stay open for another 6 days, and this is not a vote, it is a discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Larcorba on this, it seems weird to remove the page after the changes Larcorba made. 5GZPPwkICWU 11:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC) — 5GZPPwkICWU (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@5GZPPwkICWU: can you please explain to me how you found this discussion on your first edit? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Yes, I can, but I don't see how that adds value to this discussion on deleting this page or not. Just FYI; I am not working at the company Zabbix, nor here to introduce 'self promotion' for the product or company. Larcorba made changes(well, an overhaul of the page), where it seems the self promotion is not present anymore?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5GZPPwkICWU (talk • contribs)
@5GZPPwkICWU: Yes, it does add value. No, the edits by Lacorba did not make it better in term of self promotion, notability needs independent sourcing, and all those edits did was doubling the number of dependent sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure - I admit I shared this AfD to the /r/Zabbix subreddit (referring to the off-site canvassing notice at the top). I had no intentions of "canvassing" and have modified my statement on Reddit stating that deletion discussions are not votes. I have read WP:CAN and will follow this as closely as appropriate. Please don't template my talk page. riffic (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no horse to race on this AFD but if you read WP:CAN surely you have read about WP:INAPPNOTE. It is clearly stated that vote stacking, that is defined by Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement) is not allowed. Your posting in the subreddit that is clearly supporting Zabbix clearly show this intent. WP:STEALTH also stated that the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged. I will not bring into attention the tone you are using in the Reddit as it is outside the scope of Wikipedia, but in my opinion you are not adhering to the WP:AGF when defending this article to be kept. SunDawn talk 07:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more careful down the road about off-site notifications and keeping a neutral tone. I sincerely hope that I did not tank the merits of this own discussion with my actions, however I still stand that the 5 Google book citations are way more than adequate to establish notability from independent and reliable sources. IMO this should be a withdrawn AfD. It'd be nice to have the nominator admit and act accordingly. riffic (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: And how can the information be 100% independent, not biased be for you? Any article written be it on the internet be it in a book is always biased in some way as the author will have a certain view about the product and so his own opinion be it correct or wrong. btw I am Patrik the author of the 2 Zabbix books. I have no connection with Zabbix LLC. The company I work for is Open-Future a Zabbix partner yes but we don't get money from Zabbix..... . But the books have been written in my own free time. How more independent do you want it?

Do you want a book from someone who has never worked with Zabbix? There is nothing wrong with the article all information on it is correct. The style how it was written was maybe a bit of self promoting but it's wikipedia ... adapt it or ask ppl to change the style.

Deleting this article imho is worse. You don't erase an article about the holocaust because it was written by a yew or a nazi. That's just erasing valuable information. You just ask an independent person to verify it and correct it if it needs corrections. It's not because its written by someone who uses the product that the information if false or misleading. If you google there is more then enough information to confirm what has been written on this page. --Trikke76 (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Trikke76 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@Trikke76: I have not asked for unbiased references, I asked for independent and reliable sources. The article as it stood when I saw it had absolutely zero independent sources. The problem is that for every single reference in the version at that time (and also in the version where the number of references was doubled from 22 to 44!) were showing a connection. My first search for references showed the same, all documentation on zabbix.com, (zabbix) blogs, and books (The book I looked at was written by you and Rihards Olups, where the biography of Rihards states "He started using Zabbix in 2001, and joined Zabbix company later. Rihards spent 6 years at Zabbix",^[25], the last edition of the book was of 2019; the other book was by Luciano Alves, listed on zabbix.com as Zabbix Brazil CEO.^[26] Yes, maybe the books were written at a time that they did not get compensation from Zabbix (yet/anymore), but there is still a connection and for connection it does not mean that you need to get direct financial compensation for it anyway). Zero reliable sources without connection to the Zabbix. Then I go to the article and I see that there is rather heavy editing by an IP that is allocated to Zabbix, a username that seems to show connection to Zabbix, IPs that are from the same geographical area, and users who only edited Zabbix and Zabbix related text, and where the text is totally self-serving, nearing to plain advertising.

And note, I am not asking that the article only needs to have independent sourcing and that we need to get rid of all primary sourcing - there is nothing wrong with primary sources, but for an article to exist on Wikipedia it also needs independent sources. Primary sources alone do not show notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra:Seems like we have fixed your independent resources issue though, supplying enough references to verify Zabbix as a notable piece of software and a addition to the information on Wikipedia instead of a promotional (your words not mine) page. Seems to me that the discussion can be ended right here or you should provide some constructive pieces of 'let's call it advice' as to how we could further improve the article. Larcorba 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Template:Primary_sources template to the page because that is the correct level of reaction to its content. Deleting is a massive overreaction. Hlovdal (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Even if the topic turns out to be notable this article is a trainwreck that does not belong in mainspace. I checked one of the new citations, the 'Cloud Computing Bible' because it was easily accessible to me. It seems the only reference is a mention in a table containing a long list of software projects. Adding books that contain only trivial coverage is not helping the case to keep this article, nor is filling this discussion with comments that are ungrounded in Wikipedia policy. Please present the three best sources, that are fully independent, reliably published, and in depth if you folks would like this process to end in a keep. - MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: The 'trainwreck' definition was also what came to mind for me. As I described above I did go through the history, and have considered to revert to the first version and try to keep out COI/promotional edits. But then, google did not really help to give significant independent reliable sources either (possibly influenced by SEO in line with the promotional editing here). Do we really want to get this trainwreck back on the rails? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT would also be a good option. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: So you check out one of 5 sources of which the others mention a greater detailed description of the product and still write it off? I'd suggest you do a full analysis or do not add on to the discussion. Because sources like this one go way more in depth: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sarbanes_Oxley_IT_Compliance_Using_Open/5_pbDhDdxLAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zabbix%20monitoring&pg=PA357&printsec=frontcover Larcorba 11:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop blugeoning the discussion. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we've already satisfied WP:THREE; we've certainly satisfied WP:NSOFTWARE at this point. The defined inclusion criteria are covered (third and fourth points are what we're discussing here.) Here are three (all of these assert notability and are beyond trivial mentions, they are independent to Zabbix LLC or its partners and also satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE):

Monitoring Docker, Russ McKendrick, Packt Publishing, December 2015. Chapter 4 is an in-depth guide on using Zabbix and I'll quote, "Out of the these three options, Zabbix seemed to be the most straightforward one at the time. It was doing enough work to manage the several hundred servers I was going to monitor without having to have the extra work of learning the complexities of setting up Nagios or Zenoss; after all, given the task the software had, I needed to be able to trust that I had set it up correctly. In this chapter, while I am going to go into some detail about the setup and the basics of using Zabbix, we will only be touching on some of the functionalities, which can do a lot more than just monitor your containers."
Perschke, Susan (Sep 12, 2018). "REVIEW: Zabbix delivers effective, no-frills network monitoring". Network World. IDG.
Sarbanes-Oxley IT Compliance Using Open Source Tools. Elsevier Science. December 19, 2007. p. 356. ISBN 9780080557274.

To speak a bit towards the calls to WP:TNT the article, that'd be fine as long as an immediate rewrite with the found references asserting notability were to be added. However, let me quote from WP:TNTTNT, "If the article could be reverted to any past version, then deletion is not valid." There already has been a call by the nominator to revert to the first version. Nothing's stopping anyone from doing this now and calling this AfD off. riffic (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created Zabbix#Security_vulnerabilities to add more critical parts of the software to counterweight the bias. Discussion about the changes itself please on the talk page. I agree that the article is mostly promotional and should be improved. Although I disagree with User:Beetstra RfD process since Zabbix is a cornerstone of IT landscape and in use for decades, I agree with the reasoning he was presenting so far. I would keep the pressure on Zabbix LLC to improve the article by themselves. The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, no editing by Zabbix LLC. That is part of the problem in the first place: this article is a, as MrOllie describes it, trainwreck because of the many promotional edits. This article needs a proper overhaul by subjects who do not have an agenda to push, and certainly not by editors who have a conflict of interest (let alone those who are editing in violation of the Terms of Use.
Counterweighting the bias is not solving the problem of the article, and I do not think that notices of secrity vulnerabilities are enough to show notability, nor do mentions in blogs. The mainstream references mentioned above are better (though some are rather thin, more mentions and/or popularity vote counting which can be influenced). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GavriilaDmitriev: Nice to see that addition, nice going! @Beetstra: So, what's your exact problem still with the page? The promotional stuff is gone, sources have been fixed, additional independent sources are added. Where's your constructive feedback? On a related note, if Zabbix makes edits that are fair and add to the value in an independent way I don't see why they couldn't. As long as they stay neutral in their edits. Larcorba 11:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Larcorba: '... as long as they stay neutral in their edits ...' - the article was a promotional piece, they did not stay neutral. And in the way they did it it is in direct violation of Mediawikis Terms of Use. So there is clearly a reason why they couldn't.

Regarding the article, I beg to differ. It is still a self serving piece of material, a trainwreck. It does not in any form comply with the standards that we have for articles.

Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: Okay, sorry I should rephrase as long as they stay neutral in their edits of the page in the future. I agree it was promontional and self serving, I do not agree it is self-serving any longer, at least not more than the PRTG, Nagios or Datadog pages are. I'm still waiting on constructive feedback from your side.. What exact part is not up to your Wikipedia standards, we've been making the edits you suggested and all you can say is that it's not good enough without providing reason. We can't change anything based on your feedback, thus it is a NULL argument and cannot be used as a reason for deletion.Larcorba 12:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Larcorba: "... not more than the PRTG, Nagios or Datadog pages are' . I pointed above to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that other pages do the same is not a reason for this page to do it as well (and I already said that the Nagios pages was only marginally better). The only thing that means is that maybe PRTG, Nagios and Datadog also need a massive overhaul (if they are worth rescueing in the first place). What is not appropriate, the massive number of primary references in comparison to independent secondary sources. Marginal secondary sourcing (and books are not secondary sourcing, they are not evidence of notability). Tone of language, non-encyclopedic information. Promotional text. Inappropriate use of linking (you basically reinserted things I removed as spam). An indiscriminate list of features. It is a mess and it has only become more of a mess since the start of this AfD. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@user:rsjaffe can I get a reason why my addition was deleted in this change together with content from other editors? You mentioned cruft where I clearly don't belong to since I made a critical claim in my addition. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, there are major violations of WP:COI and WP:PAID, so WP:TNT should apply. Second, in all the rambling above and all the sources added, there is still no indication of notability. As best I can tell there is one independent source used. The rest are primary or connected sources that do not contribute to notability. If someone can show WP:THREE independent secondary sources, I would reconsider but absent that, it should be deleted.Slywriter (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slywriter: Now that WP:THREE is something constructive I can work with, thanks for that. Let me gather (at least) three notable resources and get back to you on that one. Once I have some personal free time, I'll take another look (probably this weekend) and place them in this thread.--Larcorba (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have used zabbix at work before, it is something most sys admin types know about. It is infamous, and notable. This article is completely useless at summarizing the topic, and I can see why non sys admins would read this and think it wasn't notable. wp:tnt is required to fix the article. 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just called Zabbix notable, that smells like an argument to keep to me. Deletion is not cleanup - meeting the General Notability Guideline is a criteria for inclusion. riffic (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

zabbix should have a Wikipedia article, I just don't think it is this one. The authors seem confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. The article should discuss why zabbix is notable and what it is. Instead, it reads like a ambiguous feature list. Software that isn't notable also has features. This article is pointless and you know more about zabbix by reading the Nagios article. 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At any point any of us can wipe away the page to its very first revision and start from scratch with adding just the independent, reliable sources found via this AFD process. That'd be a better choice than deletion, which at this point would be disruptive considering the subject's notability (which we both agree is not in dispute). riffic (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has occurred. MarshallKe (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT case. scope_creep^Talk 17:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source? How about Mastering Zabbix by Andrea Dalle Vacche, who does not work for Zabbix? MarshallKe (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per scope creep. Note WP:PROMO WP:ELNO and many others. 90% of the article as it stands should be in the users manual, not wikipedia. The other 10% is a humungous table of release dates !!!! Terrible article. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)NOTE. TNT applied, Ivote struck. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has sufficient secondary coverage. I just WP:TNTd some of the worst parts of the article.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleters: Please re-read I've tried to rescue a small half-decent article from the remains of the former large bloated self-promoting one. Still needs work. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with previous deletion argumentation. But as someone who used Zabbix I would consider the current article of little to no value. It misses essential content and even the current Development section is of no value. I would prefer to be a part of a full rebuild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavriilaDmitriev (talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I believe that the page meets notability requirements but the current page make it hard to confirm. Moving it to draft space would allow the page to be worked on without the time pressure of an active AfD. Gusfriend (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking myself to make a personal backup of the article, which would be almost the same as draftifying it but I decided against it. Since this article has been a purely promotional article against WPs rules for many years, I think the time pressure of an active AfD is justified. Regarding notability I agree that it can be achieved. But as others mentioned prior it should be WP:TNT GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that you are correct about starting over again but the optimist in me thinks that a brief sojourn into draft space where a few editors could work on the article together might be the solution. Gusfriend (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Against draftify If the revised article can't be rescued in these few days allocated to the AfD discussion, I think that means that it is too far gone and needs to be wiped clean and restarted. I did a major WP:TNT job on the article, but if that isn't enough, wipe it clean and start over. Draftification would just prolong the pain if it is too flawed in its current state to be rescued in a few days. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie, Slywriter, Scope creep, GavriilaDmitriev, and Gusfriend: "Delete or draftify per TNT" voters, now that TNT has been applied to the article and there are no signs of an attempted revert, it seems necessary for you to revise your position here. MarshallKe (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote remains unchanged. Given what remains and is sourced, notability is not met. Existence is not notability.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw from voting since it was claimed I might be WP:PAID for Zabbix.inc. To show that I have nothing to gain here, I take myself out of this topic. GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 17:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seem to be copyedited back down to reasonably decent article. As a well known product that is under active development; so is likely notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't positive notability, but SonarSource recently spotlighted Zabbix – which it describes as "a very popular open-source monitoring platform" and "a high-profile target" for hackers – in a software vulnerability case study.[27] The US Dept of Homeland Security is now tracking it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog, which implies notability of a kind.[28] Oops: more coverage.[29][30][31][32] Start the article from scratch as a stub if there are content problems, but it meets GNG. Magic9Ball (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Porat Yosef[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. Not every "world record" makes something notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no coverage outside of the menorah story to establish notability. As for the record, a Google search for "human menorah" "paramus" indicates that there was a small flurry of coverage for a couple of days in December 2017, immediately after the event, and then another small flurry of passing mentions in articles about the surpassing of their record in Australia. There's no sustained attention, as the notability guidelines require, to suggest that making the world's largest human menorah is considered a notable achievement for Wikipedia's purposes. Largoplazo (talk) 12:24, 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 keep. ✗plicit 13:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors 50th Anniversary Show[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination following the closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#General Motors 50th Anniversary Show as "Restore and AfD". Should this article be deleted? feminist (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search isn't easy due to its vintage and many discussions about GM's 50th, but I am unable to find anything even using some of the creatives' names as a filter. If it were notable, I feel it would have been better documented/digitized. Paley has an overview but it's nowhere near enough for GNG or other notability Star Mississippi 02:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging RfD participants @Tamzin and Mdewman6:. I would ping the creator and BLARer but both are indef blocked. No opinion as yet on this AfD from me. A7V2 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a bit of expansion. The article wasn't doing this special justice. This was a big production, highly rated, critically reviewed well, nominated for two Emmys, even had a soundtrack album released. When producer Jess Oppenheimer died in 1988, his obits all mentioned this special as one of his productions.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Milowent's expansion, as well as the fact it was nominated for an Emmy Award. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bramma G[edit]

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

They've written and directed a couple of films, one of which won a significant award for best film. I'm not sure if that's enough to meet WP:NFILMMAKER. The sources aren't really there to meet WP:GNG and there's been some autobiographical editing on the article, and it feels like some WP:UPE to get the article created. I'm just not sure there's enough to meet notability requirements. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The National Film Award is probably enough to get it across the line (WP:CREATIVE 3 & 4C). Also there's also independent coverage [33] [34].-KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, saw that, but with there also being a specific award for Director versus Film, I wasn't sure where or how much this would meet the award criteria. Appreciate the comments! Ravensfire (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
National Awards in any Best Film category are awarded jointly to director and producer, if that helps. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree with KH-1. Passes NDIRECTOR #3 with two notable films, one of which won the National Award. As the article is not promotional in tone, I'm leaning towards keep. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent coverage supports that WP:NDIRECTOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Phanishwar Nath Renu Engineering College[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG, lacks reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article appears to be entirely based on No original research. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is one of the 38 state government engineering colleges of Bihar state (List of institutions of higher education in Bihar). All other 37 colleges have articles. It is not a commercial college, it is a government-funded institution. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — GargAvinash ^talk 08:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from what I can tell there's only like 2 reliable references about it, one from The Hindu and Navbharat Times, The Hindu article is extremely trivial though. Since it just covers the college in passing. Outside of that everything else is primary, or basic school listings. As far as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the outcome of the RfC in 2017 is clear that arguments based on it should be avoided in deletion discussions. In the meantime the fact that all the other colleges have articles is WP:OTHERSTUFF and should probably also not factor into this. I'm sure some of the other articles will be nominated for deletion eventually. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Degree-awarding institutions are generally notable. Coverage does not have to be In English, or online. Its only 3 years old and more coverage is very likely to develop. Rathfelder (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Araria News source is not much more then a newsflash about the oping of buildinfs. Not something substantial. As far a I can see, the rest are listings. Given the small number of intakes, it still a very tiny institution. Looks promotional too, due to the emphasis on admission. The Banner talk 23:36, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes; I found this link from Google Books in a WP:BEFORE but it needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I managed to turn up a couple of pretty solid reviews. Artw (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, book and Washington Post review are enough to pass WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources. Passes WP:NFILM. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two instances of SIGCOV now added so this is a pass for WP:GNG at least. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Washington Post article is good to establish notability. However, it needs more quality sources and I wasn't able to find them.--Art&football (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Washington Post article and Google Books link are enough to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Vows (1987 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes; I found this link from Google Books in a WP:BEFORE but it needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Corpus Christi Times, Times-Advocate, and The Courier-Journal. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newspaper reviews listed above. Something to note for pre-internet films, most sources will be newspapers...so, unless you have access to a site like newspapers.com, its probably best to not nominate them as someone who does have access will more than likely find them and list them in the discussion. (Just my 2 cents.) DonaldD23 talk to me 03:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SL93. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have expanded the article with reference material from historic newspapers, which coupled with the sources noted by SL93, make me confident that it is enough to satisfy notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 00:20, 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. The article reads in its entirety "The Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana ("Italian Old-Catholic Church") is an Old Catholic churches in Italy", referenced to a link to the group's website. After two weeks of AfD, nobody has found and added any secondary sources. The article therefore clearly fails WP:V, which rules out the merger proposed by some. Sandstein 08:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana[edit]

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

This alleged organisation has almost no secondary RS to support its existence, and none has been added in the 15 years of existence of the Wikipedia article.
The article claims without any source that this groups has been existing for more than two centuries, which seems false to me as in this case there would be many secondary RSs discussing this denomination; however, only one ~~such RS mentions~~ unreliable source discusses this group, the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Centro studi sulle nuove religioni, 2001, which is considered unreliable) which states (p. 49) the 2-century existence of the organisaton is a claim and not a fact. I found no ~~other~~ RS on Google Books and on Google Scholar which even mention this organisation, and found respectively two and one mention(s) in total of this organisation on those databases, including the one in the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia.
This organisation clearly does not meet WP:NCHURCH, being discussed in only one RS. "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Multiple sources).
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not one mention in the resources available through the Wikipedia Library, fails WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the source found by the nominator is not reliable. It is self-published, being written by the founders of its publisher CESNUR, which has been found to be unreliable at WP:RSN. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: thanks for pointing this out, it has indeed been declared unreliable. For those interested, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#CESNUR. I will edit my AfD nomination statement. Veverve (talk) 10:19, 10 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 00:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources cited are (a) the church's own website and (b) three 19th century documents or sets of documents, but I'm not even sure whether they discuss this specific church, and aren't cited to support any particular statement in the article. That's not enough to pass WP:ORG. If the church really is notable, some independent, reliable sources need to be provided to prove that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90: none of the three 19th-century documents given as external links mention this group. Veverve (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Old Catholic Church~~ Merge and redirect to Old Catholic Church in Italy This is a translation of the same article in the Italian Wikipedia, which also lacks reliable sources (as is their wont). The English translation of the title is "Old Catholic Church". The article on Old Catholic Church does not have much on Italy, so it makes sense that someone thought the Italian aspect of this history was worth noting. I did find articles in G-scholar searching on "chiesa vetero-cattolica" on this general topic, some of which were clearly about Italy. Ditto G-books. Books in English on the topic may have information about the Italian movement, e.g. this book which has 34 mentions of Italy. I also found one online site, Bottegadinazareth, a religious publication probably not entirely independent. The name varies in these texts, sometimes being in the plural form, which makes it hard to search on. ~~So it's a real thing with a real theological history, some of which takes place in Italy. I'm willing to do a first pass at merge if someone will remind me.~~ Lamona (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: I fail to understand you argument (you are perhaps proposing a WP:RLOTE). If you search for the Italian translation of "Old Catholic Church", then you will indeed find sources discussion the Old Catholic movement. You can do that with any language. The article is not about the Old Catholic movement in Italy, but about an alleged specific groups of Old Catholics in Italy. The question is: which sources discuss this particular group, whose website is https://www.chiesaveterocattolica.it ? Veverve (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge -- This is a denomination, though probably a small one, rather than a mere local church. It should probably be called Old Catholic Church in Italy. I find that such an article already exists, so that this sohould probably be merged there. I am not clear if both articles relate to the same denomination; if not, they can still be accommodated within one article. The external links cite three Anglican sources. These will be external to the denomination. Why are these not RS? I am reluctant to support a merge to Old Catholic Church, because that will upset the balance of that article. There are no doubt many national manifestations of that denomination/movement, which might be listed in that article, but could not be appropriately covered in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron Good catch - I hadn't thought to look for Old Catholic Church in Italy. I agree that any merging should be done to that article. I'm neutral on whether a redirect is needed. Lamona (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: The external links cite three Anglican sources. These will be external to the denomination. Why are these not RS?: as I wrote above, none of those external links - which are 19th-century sources - are related to or mention this alleged group whose existence is so far unproven.

It is clear to me the Old Catholic Church in Italy is not the same as the Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana. Where do you get the idea those could be the same group? Veverve (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve Can you give any sources that would explain this? Everything I've read puts the Italian "version" of the Old Catholic Church as evolving from the same history as the OCC in the rest of Europe. It appears that it has taken a somewhat different direction in each culture, but the basic tenets seem to be coherent. The Italian web site gives this: "la Missione Cristiana Cattolica Italiana, assumendo la denominazione di Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana, seguita la sua Opera sostenendo e divulgando il Rito antico, il Sacerdozio dei laici e la Scienza- Arte Salutare Cristica" and I read that's what is defined in the Old Catholic Church article. However, I had not noticed that there is *also* an article Old Catholic Church in Italy, which seems to cover the same ground as this one, and gives the Italian name as *Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica in Italia*. There are articles for Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands, Old Catholic Church of America, but also Old Catholic Church in Italy, Old Catholic Church in Poland etc. It seems this needs some theological expertise. In any case I still think that there is no reason to keep this nominated article, and if there is relevant information in it then perhaps the merge should be to Old Catholic Church in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamona (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: Again, I do not understand what you are trying to argue. All Old Catholics agree on a set of tenets, a core doctrine, just like any Christian denomination. The article is not about how Old Catholicism developed in Italy, but is about a specific group of Old Catholics. Old Catholic Church in Poland, Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands and Old Catholic Church in Italy are not general articles about the History of Old Catholicism in Poland, the Netherlands or in Italy; those articles are about specific groups which happen to be called "Old Catholic Church in Poland", "Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands" and "Old Catholic Church in Italy".

The Old Catholic Church in Italy's website is [35], while the Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana's website is [36]. They are therefore clearly not the same group. Veverve (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through those two links you see that one is under the umbrella of the Conferenza Episcopale Internazionale di Utrecht, which was an umbrella organization for all of the "old catholics". The second one explains that the Italian group separated from the Utrect organization in 1997. ("Dal 1997 si è resa autonoma dal patronato della Conferenza Episcopale Internazionale di Utrecht per mantenersi fedele al principio conciliare della Chiesa Antica.") This history is included in the article for Old Catholic Church in Italy: "The Old Catholic Church in Italy (Italian: Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica in Italia) was a Union of Utrecht of the Old Catholic Churches (UU) mission in Italy until 2011. Some former missions are in full communion with the Anglican Communion." So those two are different phases of the same group. If you have evidence of yet another group that needs to be accommodated, please present it. (I note that the article on Old Catholic Church does not link to Old Catholic Church in Italy and I see nothing on the talk page to explain this.) Lamona (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dates do not match (1997 vs 2011) so it cannot be the same group. Moreover, the Union of Utrech (UU) has many churches which are part of it, so it is possible there were two distinct, independent Old Catholic groups in Italy part at one point of the UU and left it at some point. Moreover, your whole argument relies on those WP:PRIMARY SOURCES being reliable, which is quite a bold assumption for such a small unknown group. Veverve (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are lots of churches which are, or have been, part of the Independent Catholicism movement, some of which specifically identify themselves as Old Catholic, but not all of which are members of the Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic). This article is about a particular church known as Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana, and the question is whether we have adequate sources discussing this church as opposed to other churches with similar names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Bernier[edit]

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

The article is only sourced to IMDb which is not a reliable source. I search for other sources, I only found a few mentions, I did not find any signifcant sources giving indepth coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find an obituary in Variety and a mention in Down Beat (which I've added to the article). Not sure if that is enough to keep or where this falls on WP:MUSICBIO. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was active mainly in the 40s and 50s. There are ample offline sources via Newspaper Archives. I've added the Lowell Sun (from 1944) and will add more later. (Use the Wikipedia Library! It's an amazing resource.) JSFarman (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources demonstrate he satisfies WP:COMPOSER#1("Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition"). 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have only done a very brief search myself but already have come up with plenty of material and mentions in historic press that are more than passing or trivial. I have expanded the article a little with this but this is not exhaustive. May I suggest to the nominator, particularly on the back of another AfD which I have also participated in, that they expand their searches to historic newspapers, including google books and get a subscription to newspapers.com via The Wikipedia Library. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when this changed, but Google's newspapers search used to be a separate link in our find sources template whereas it can now be found as a drop down menu choice in the Google book search link result. Perhaps it should be restored as a separate link to highlight it? 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was never aware of it being a direct link previously, but then i'd typically do a manual search anyway so wouldn't know. Google used to maintain their newspapers database but now it exists only as an archive of what was done previously, so unsure if something changed around that time. Either way, it's not difficult to change the drop down to "newspapers", nor for experienced editors to apply for a newspapers.com account. I can't read the obituary posted by Vladimir.copic, though it may have additional useful content not found in the newspapers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page commentary (Module_talk:Find_sources#Google_News_vs._Newspapers) indicates it was changed on October 17, 2021 after a very short discussion. I agree that accessing the newspaper archive should not be too difficult for anyone familiar with Google book search results, but I think there is something to be said for making it as easy as possible. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - think I can safely give this vote now with the additional sources found and arguments above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Vision[edit]

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

Referenceless and not notable Greatder (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to find relevant sources we may need to search for non-english sources. People in Kerala appear to speak a variety of languages including Malayalam, Tamil, Tulu, and Kannada. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has been proposed for deletion in the past, the end result being the merging of two articles. According to this source, the company is active, so this article can be kept with the involvement of a local publisher.--Tysska (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kerala Vision seems to be primarily a broadband provider which also has a television channel under the same name, I have not found sufficient sourcing for the channel to meet WP:GNG. In any case if this is going to be notable, it would probably be because of the broadband provider so weak delete per WP:TNT if not anything. Regarding the broadband provider itself, there is a lot of coverage in terms of passing mentions and some non trivial ones but I've couldn't find anything that can adequately satisfy WP:NORG. For instance, they made the news for extending internet connectivity to some remote villages. I may have missed something, although this is a regional if not a local distributor so I wouldn't count on it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references in any language that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:46, 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. Sandstein 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shammi Shinh[edit]

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

Article fails to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple sources. The vast majority of the coverage presented in the article before it was reduced to a stub was about a product (Goût de Diamants Champagne) produced by a company the subject of the article is associated with, which itself does not appear notable. Brandon (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources. Google only turns up press releases and the like, GNews has zero hits. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 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.