< February 21	February 23 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. John Morris[edit]

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

Municipal government employee ("Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator for the city of Anchorage") fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Also, title fails MOS:HON KidAd • SPEAK 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and West Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Alaska. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One reasonable source, related to work as homeless coordinator. Nothing else. Article probably written by a relative of subject. Most of article, other than section on homelessness, not well-sourced. Fails WP:NPOL WP:BIO. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:rsjaffe
Treinen, Lex		superficial coverage	✘ No
Rivera, Daniella		just a name callout	✘ No
Theriault Boots, Michelle		Interview and background info	✔ Yes
Bronson, Dave	Mayor's page	Just a name	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete - Fails notability criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an article lists that the person is one of more than 4,000 of something in the US, but tries to make that sound like a significant claim, it is clealry overly pormotional. There are not enough sources that adeuqately cover him to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per rsjaffe's assessment table (and subsequent searches for additional sourcing), fails GNG and does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actress (2007 film)[edit]

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

Film appears to fail the requirements for WP:NFILM. Everything found in a BEFORE was database entries, articles about the release, or interviews mentioning the film.

PROD removed when citation added, but that citation is simply an interview with the director. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs someone who is fluent in Russian to search for sourcing. I'm finding some evidence of coverage in places like this and this, which suggests additional coverage, but I'm kind of at the limit of what Google Translate can do for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at WP:RUSSIA asking if anyone would be willing to search for sourcing - it could very well not be notable, but I'd like for someone fluent to do a search just in case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big review in a reliable source--Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short one but reliable as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ymblanter! This would make it a keep on my end, then. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources, which demonstrate sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated conveyor roller condition monitoring[edit]

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

As I pointed out on the article's talk page when I draftified this:

The article has had serious problems since it was first created [2017]. When i contacted the article creator over the issues he stated that he would be working continuously to improve it, so I left it. I lost track of it, and now I find that the creator never returned to the article, never addressed his possible COI, and no-one else has made substantial efforts to fix the issues.
We might be able to justify an article on the subject, but a better topic would likely be the larger. less specific field of Automated condition monitoring. I have some experience in the field, but don't feel like putting the effort into rewriting it, so I've draftified it. If the creator or someone else does not work on it, it will eventually be deleted as a stale draft. As it stands, this is sourced to a proprietary system and a few dissertations. TNT is probably the best solution.

See User talk:Ryan Norris161531 for my attempts to get the author to explain and address the issues. I moved it to draft on August 10, 2021. The policy page discussion on draftifying established articles Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_159#Resolve_the_inconsistency_between_WP:DRAFTIFY_and_WP:ATD did not close until September 13, 2021 and was not even opened until August 13, three days after I draftified the article. The article should have been deleted as an abandoned draft, but instead user:Chess moved it back to article space and incorrectly claimed that the policy that established articles should not be moved to draft was already in effect when I draftified the article, thee days before the policy discussion was even opened [1] Meters (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned discussion closed on September 13, 2020. You're reading the year wrong. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just noticed my error. My apologies. Meters (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My move of this article to draft was incorrect. I should have brought this to AFD a the time. Meters (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed another batch of verbatim copvio from a Phd thesis. Meters (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with blow up and start with a section in automated condition monitoring and digital twin. Gusfriend (talk) 06:40, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Viswanath[edit]

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

Not a notable writer. Also not a notable social activist. Very little direct coverage about him. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the article nor my own search produced the significant coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. I see nothing to show he's a notable academic and I don't believe winning a young journalist award, by itself, is even close to showing WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:GNG. Pinakpani (talk) 08:15, 28 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 G5, deleted by Beetstra. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie-Lee Morrow[edit]

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

Non-notable, Lacks in-depth, independent coverage. Sources are mostly stats. Tame (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Could not find much at all. Aoziwe (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG per nomination SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 17:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable volleyball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:33, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Weedall[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being an unsuccessful candidate hardly meets notability requirements. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not great coverage for notability. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Searched databases for subject but found only some minor passing mentions in Green Left Weekly-- far from the epitome of an WP:RS. I couldn't find anything to support WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any where near sufficient about the subject to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candiates are not default notable, but when you win less than 1% of the vote that is an especially strong sign of not being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but the volume and depth of sourcing here is nowhere close to sufficient to make her candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, especially GNG. This looks like a blizzard. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability issues. Gusfriend (talk) 08:07, 1 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!} 23:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death Train (2006 film)[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing I found in a BEFORE help it pass the guidelines established for notability. Tagged for notability since September 2021. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Martial arts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of English language notability. Gusfriend (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing that shows this film is notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:29, 27 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!} 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bouzié[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found. Everything found in a BEFORE seems to be database listings and passing mentions.

PROD removed with no explanation or improvement. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in Africa Shoots Back: Alternative Perspectives in Sub-Saharan Francophone African Film. Somewhat less, but still more than a passing mention in Focus on African Films. SpinningSpark 12:13, 16 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!} 22:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books shows several examples of coverage that suggest sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anchimolius[edit]

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

Spartan who is marginally famous for being mentioned by Herodotus, but did not do much of significance and has no real lasting notability other than other historians repeating what Herodotus wrote. The single source of information that itself does not confer notability does not pass Anchimolius passed WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. TartarTorte 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a stub, which is probably incapable of expansion, because all we have is a brief mention of him in Herodotus. Rather than delete this, it would be better if it could be merged or redirected to an article about the battle in which he died. Nevertheless the article is inadequate, because it fails to give a date for the campaign in which he died, which commentators on Herodotus must have deduced. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 16 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!} 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage except a few sentences in Herodotus, and I don't see any suitable merge targets. I don't think even the battle is notable enough for a standalone article, although it could possibly be mentioned at Phalerum. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. I'll likely change my !vote to merge instead if someone can produce a suitable target. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brief mention in Herodotus isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 14:54, 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 redirect to Deo Gratias Photo Studio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Koblah Bruce Vanderpuije[edit]

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

Pure link spam for Deo Gratias Photo Studio. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, History, and Ghana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with Timtrent I am unable to see WP:BIO satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge - to Deo Gratias Photo Studio which does seem to be notable. Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 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!} 23:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Mojave Bombardier Challenger 600 crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable aviation accident. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's already mentioned in Bombardier Challenger 600 series#Flight test phase. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was a test flight. A significant percentage of test flights crash, so they're like most military crashes, and the latter generally don't merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 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. ✗plicit 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KarMel Brewing Company[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any available sources on what looks like a pretty small brewery to check it meets WP:NCORP. The two cited sources are also not relevant - Eventbrite, an event management/ticketing website, is an unreliable source and the CS Monitor article doesn't mention the brewery. Bridget (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:A longstanding WP:SPA article about a company, created before the current WP:NCORP criteria. An Eventbrite listing and a general reference to a belief which inspired a product name are far from robust support for an article, and my searches are not finding evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 21:52, 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 List of statues of Leopold II of Belgium. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Leopold II of Belgium, Ghent[edit]

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

A non-notable statue does not become notable simply because it is removed. Although not a biography, the same principle as WP:ONEEVENT seems reasonably relevant here.

Aside from its removal which is already covered adequately at List of statues of Leopold II of Belgium, there is no significant coverage of this particular statue which is one among hundreds of minor local statues and plaques of Belgian monarchs, including tens or even hundreds depicting Leopold II, in the country. The fact we have an article at all smacks of WP:RECENTISM. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of multiple reports by reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG. You can't just magic policies up out of nowhere by reinterpreting things like WP:ONEEVENT to mean whatever you like. -- The Anome (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to assume good faith. If you read WP:GNG, you will see that "[a] topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage (etc)". It then clarifies that meeting the criteria "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". As mentioned above, this subject is already handled amply in the List.—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything worth saying about this statue is said at List of statues of Leopold II of Belgium. Athel cb (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of statues of Leopold II of Belgium, which adequately covers the subject and provides more context than a separate article can. I don't see that there is so much more to say about this particular sculpture that it can't be done in the list article. Vexations (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The amount of text attached each entry in the list is quite substantial, compared to what a typical list has. We either need to merge all individual statues back to the list article or allow most to be kept. One solution would be to keep the individual articles and purge the list of detail where there is a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and sources. Page seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of statues of Leopold II of Belgium. The other option would be a redirect to a list of statues in Ghent. Gusfriend (talk) 07:50, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taunton & District Saturday Football League[edit]

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

Local amateur Saturday football league of which the highest division is in the 14th tier of the English football system and the lowest division is in the 18th tier (we would never even consider having a Wikipedia article on a 14th tier local sports league in any other country)! This is in no way different to Furness Premier Football League, Mid-Somerset Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League all of which were deleted for failing WP:GNG and not meeting the rule of thumb outlined at WP:FOOTYN.

A Google News search only has 4 results all of which are announcements relating to the league being suspended due to COVID or resuming again following the relaxing of lockdown measures. These are all in local papers with low circulation and fails to make a case for why this league should be covered in a global encyclopaedia. Google Books doesn't seem to have anything. The Western Daily Press has 4 trivial mentions of the league as per ProQuest. I searched the British Newspaper Archive only to find that coverage was limited to the Taunton Courier. In each case, the league took up a small portion of one column on one page of the newspaper edition and the stories were trivial coverage that any local organisation gets in their local paper (announcements of monthly/annual meetings and fixtures/results listings). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not having problems finding news coverage with Google. one two - but main story is in the hardcopy only, three. And also simple results published such as four. I didn't look beyond Google, but as it goes back at least to the 1950s, there likely be coverage in other things, like the British Newspaper Archive. Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My British Newspaper Archive search linked in my nom didn't really yield much in the way of coverage. The results round ups in the local papers linked above don't necessarily mean that the subject needs covering in a global encyclopaedia. Several leagues were deleted last year with this type of coverage such as Mid-Somerset Football League. Bear in mind that the Bridgwater Mercury also churns out articles with the same level of coverage for a local bowling club, a charity golf fundraiser and the local annual fun fair. I'm sure that we can agree that those three events don't need a Wikipedia article! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your BNA search has an ampersand in the search term, and no results after the 1940s - I hadn't even realised the league was that old! If you remove it, and use [2]] instead it goes from 28 hits to 719 results. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through every single hit but all of the ones that I have seen are all from the Taunton Courier and seem to be either passing mentions or very basic results/fixtures round ups. In my view, Wikipedia articles should have at least some relevance to a global audience and should be careful regarding WP:BIAS. This is why we don't usually need to have articles on topics purely of local interest such as the annual scarecrow trails, Easter egg hunts, school fêtes etc. even if local papers do cover them in some depth. I can see your point, though, but we may have to agree to disagree on this occasion and see what other users' views are to gain consensus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since no-one else seems to be commenting here, I have to vote delete for the excellent reasons put forward by the nominator. We are not supposed to be Anglospherepedia, for all that some people see that as OK, and least of all in the context of a sport which, outside Britain, is historically at least less to the fore in the Anglosphere/Commonwealth than pretty much everywhere else. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:41, 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 Liberty Holdings Limited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC) no consensus. 2001:448A:6000:FD1B:CDB2:749D:A344:C24D (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANLIB[edit]

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

Article has only 1st party sources; I can find nothing but listings in Google, DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well known and large South African asset management company. Park3r (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but how do we know that unless there are third-party reliable references? Any links? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more than enough sources in GNews at least confirming they exist, not sure how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are numerous articles in the financial press about Stanlib. Given the declining quality of Google search results means that we need to prefix our searches. The fact that South African journalism is in crisis means that many sources are now paywalled. Here are some mainstream sources (IOL is not paywalled and despite recent issues with its journalism, the group dates back to the 1800s, and was a WP:RS when most of these articles were written. A search for •

“Stanlib iol” gives us numerous results including: from 2021 [3]. From 2009 [4]. From 2018 [5]. From 2004 [6]. From 2015 (Bloomberg) [7]. 2006: [8]. 2004: [9]. 2012:[10]. Here’s coverage from News24: [11]. I’m on a mobile, but there are literally dozens of articles in WP:RS demonstrating its notability. Park3r (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as per WP:ATD to Liberty Holdings Limited - although that article is probably in worse shape currently, it does appear that sufficient sources exist for that topic to meet notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Liberty Holdings Limited. No proper citations provided. Chelokabob (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we merge content that is not properly sourced?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like WP:NOTCLEANUP is being disregarded here. The subject of the article is notable, regardless of the sourcing. I have added numerous citations above from WP:RS demonstrating notability. Once notability is demonstrated, the AFD process should end and other mechanisms used to address sourcing and other issues with the article. Also WP:WORLDWIDE needs to be borne in mind.Park3r (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Pratap Singh[edit]

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

There is no SIG:COV about the Wiki subject. And, He/she is not a notable Police Officer as per WP:SEC. Possible CPE/COI conflict is focused here.NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the rank of special director general of police (one of the highest possible Indian police ranks) is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC):[reply]

@Necrothesp: if this person met notability, then why not this person [12]? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 02:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So why have you nominated this one for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: In here also: [13]. Can you find something between user-user relation? Though I can not comment out yet, but I am seeing a trail. My apology if this comment hurt or disturbs you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 03:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I agree that someone who held that rank in the Indian Police is notable but this page needs expansion to add additional information beginning with what they did or were involved with whilst serving at any of their positions.Gusfriend (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT : @Necrothesp: There might be more valuable consensus if @GeezGod:, @Djm-leighpark:, @Hemantha: and @Onel5969: come up with their opinion here. Regards --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:07, 14 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 // 12:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Necrothesp, Special director general of police is a notable police rank and hence subject passes WP:GNG. Please note: Nominator is himself blocked for disruptive editing. DMySon (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 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. ✗plicit 00:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbul Touqeer Khan[edit]

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

WP:APPARENTCOI article on a non notable actor who fails to meet WP:NACTOR as they are yet to take significant lead roles in multiple movies neither have they clinched any prestigious award. There literally isn’t any reliable source used in this article, a WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing cogent whatsoever. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per. No indication of meeting NACTOR requirements, and no WP:GNG worthy sources found. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject having minor roles in film and TV programmes, hence fail WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The subject is having protagonist role in Imlie and have few reliable sources.Pri2000 (talk) 19:23, 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 keep. Participants argue for Keeping this article and the nominator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Freedom Hart[edit]

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

This topic not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Trivial mentions are not enough. Malikul Mout (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Malikul Mout (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't see any source which is not independant of the subject. I don't see any trivial mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmyGrammyWhatever (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the nominator @Malikul Mout: In the very short period of time that you have begun editing you have nominated this and two other articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kine Ludvigsen & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rei Prendi) with essentially this exact same wording, can you elaborate on the specific issues that you have with this article? GPL93 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable enough - his solo project has received coverage in reliable sources and his other work adds to that. --Michig (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This subject has significant coverage in reliable sources and two Grammy nominations.Addisonson (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deji (Youtuber)[edit]

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

Unknown YouTuber; please peruse the history to see the historic amount of fluff (sourced to YouTube and Twitter) I scrapped from the article. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Internet, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if only for WP:TNT. ~~Also possible is Redirect to KSI.~~ Note Draft:Deji Olatunji. --Muhandes (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: noting Deji Olatunji and Oladeji Olatunji are salted, I withdraw the Redirect and suggest Salt. --Muhandes (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 21:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous AFDs on this person are here and here, both had Delete decisions and Deji Olatunji has administrative protection from recreation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And while I think the article should be deleted, I wanted to tell Drmies that he is far from unknown hence the repeated efforts of editors to create an article about him on Wikipedia. I mean, he has over 10 million subscribers on YouTube, he has a big fan following. But I wouldn't call him "Wikipedia notable". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is at least the 7th or so AFD under various names for this utterly non-notable YouTuber. I've previously made a lengthy argument and I stand by it: merely being related to another notable YTer and appearing on said channel is not enough to pass our silly low-bar for notability. CUPIDICAE💕 17:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oladeji Olatunji, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Shorts Gamer. I can recall countless other discussions elsewhere about this and more than a dozen deletions. CUPIDICAE💕 17:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so there are even more than the 2 previous AFDs that I found. His fans are nothing if not persistent. This might call for a liberal sprinkling of salt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given how difficult it was to keep track of these (I know there's at least one or two more that I can't remember) I think leaving it...unseasoned may be best for tracking purposes. CUPIDICAE💕 22:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Praxidicae, holy moly! I'm wondering if this isn't a matter to be handled by a filter. Do you know a filter person? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt — Per Drmies nom rationale. Fails GNG + This is a blatant ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear he doesn't meet any WP notability criteria. I'm also for salting, but it might me tricky to do given the willingness to recreate this article under a variety of titles. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable for being a youtuber with a couple million subscribers, but I don't think wikipedia-notable LockzZ (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not think the subject has the level of notability that would merit an article as has been argued by others above. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 1 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 keep. Anyone is free to move the article to the title suggested below. However, editors are encouraged to improve the article with the sources indicated below to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote J[edit]

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

Deprodded with vague "it needs to be improved, not deleted" comments. However, I was utterly unable to find even the tiniest bit of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I see are hits about coyotes, nothing about a DJ. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep sources under his real name, Jim Batton, in addition to his DJ name, include:

Memories of Nashville Rock Radio

KET Louisville Life: Coyote Calhoun Story KET is a PBS station

Coyote Calhoun Inducted into DJ Hall of Fame

Coyote Calhoun to retire after 35 years at WAMZ

Coyote Calhoun Page listing numerous other articles about him

Kris Applegate, Legendary Locals of Louisville, p. 63, ISBN 1439645876, 2014, Arcadia Publishing Inc.

https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/coyote-calhoun-ends-35year-career Coyote Calhoun Ends 35-Year Career]

There's more, but he's clearly notable. GregJackP Boomer! 01:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The notability has been established. The article needs a lot of improvement, but that is a function of more of a "notable enough to spend enough time to fix and source the article" problem that editors juggle. The on-air 1988 incident, for example, ended with police intervention and earned him the notoriety afterwards. I *think* the Birmingham market is big enough to establish him as a major DJ, but if it's not, the 1988 on-air firing is. The article would be fine with a smaller set of details and less narrative to fit the sources and relative notoriety. Fix, shorten, and keep. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by GregJack. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GregJack sources are for a different person, Louisville Country DJ,Coyote Calhoun (no real name sighted) Worked at WAMZ in 1988 and could not have been fired from Z-102 in Birmhingham. Coyote J, real name Jim Batton, is not the same man. 19:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armysheep75 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to establish consensus on whether the sources are for the person being discussed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the Armysheep75 case. Louisville Coyote Calhoun was born in San Marcos, Texas [14], but his real name is simply not given. He worked in Wichita, Knoxville, and Sallisaw, Oklahoma. [15] There seems to be enough sourcing for an article on the Louisville Calhoun. A search of Radio & Records turns up mentions of a Coyote J. Calhoun that appears to be the subject of the AfD, but the lack of a searchable local paper really hinders me nailing down anything other than the fact that Coyote Calhoun and "Coyote J. Calhoun" or Coyote J are separate people. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:52, 15 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 // 18:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided that the information in the article about them being a producer is accurate. Being both a radio DJ and a music producer give them the notability required. Without that the notability is harder to determine. Having said that, the page certainly has room for improvement. Gusfriend (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sources found by GregJackP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Coyote Calhoun. Many more quality sources appear using this name of which this reference is probably the most significant source. It documents his induction into the on-air personality category of the Country Radio Hall of Fame in 2005. This would mean he passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 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!} 23:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Chen[edit]

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

No RS to establish N. All sources are PRIMARY and/or PROMO sources. Theredproject (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources I found were of a different Alexander Chen (lazily linking that persons site that has a list of some sources discussing the other guy), maybe an article on the other guy or their work is possible but the person currently occupying this spot is definitely non-notable. Jumpytoo Talk 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources demonstrating notaiblity. If someone wants a project that will take a while, they would be advised to go through all the articles on people involved in the Olympics art competition, a competition which never really reached the level of a top art competition. Mere entry clearly is not a sign of notabity. Most of our articles on such competitors are sub-stubs that mention the fact they competed, include a birth year, and maybe a death year, and that is it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Lenn[edit]

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

PROMO page that fails NARTIST. Commercial artist doing his job. Could not verify the museum collections [16] Claims to have "Best Watercolor Artist of America — "Muse Award" (American Alliance of Museums)" but "Media & Technology MUSE Awards" awards are for technology work by museums [17]. With the exception of the kentucky derby, all of the claims of being the "offical artist" are unverifiable. And I'm doubtful that they establish N. My sense is that what it comes down to is whether this lone RS is sufficient [18] and my answer is no. Theredproject (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Tagged since 2013. I removed uncited CV laundry list of exhibitions and awards. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BEFORE search revealed nothing to substantiate the notability of this watercolor artist. I did a fairly substantial search of museum collections to see if he was included in any notable collections, but did not turn up any results. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 19:14, 27 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!} 23:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse S. Greever[edit]

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

This biography of a living person has quite an interesting history. Created by User:Tisafire as his only contribution to the encyclopaedia, it was moved to mainspace by User:Accidental-author. I note that according to the article, at the time of creation the article subject maintained a blog called The Accidental Author, although it now seems to belong to one Christopher Slater. This leads me to suspect the possibility of a conflict of interest, and I feel the article is somewhat promotionally written, and I would question whether Mr Greever is really notable as an author. —S Marshall T/C 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Comment~~*Delete I'll take it a step further and say that a conflict of interest here is much more than suspect, and the article is definitely written in a promotional tone. ~~I'm going to refrain from !voting for now to see if there's notability, but I think at bear minimum, we're looking at an explosion.~~ SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 21:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not notable, unsourced BLP. Of the twelve sources currently provided, eleven are to a page where you can buy their writing (Amazon, Untreed - publisher's site, Sony eBooks), only one promises to direct to some sort of review. But (1) it reverts to a generic review main page, and offers no search facility; (2) is run by a single individual it seems, of unverified credibility or audience; (3) discloses that some links are affiliate links, providing a commission for sales referred. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article that lacks sources that discuss the subject in detail that are independent of the subject and reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 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. I think its clear we are not keeping this in mainspace Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathan (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pathan (film)

The unreleased film, Pathan, which appears to be in post-production limbo, has been deleted:

The film is now being subject to gaming of the system, apparently by editors who are trying to confuse the jury (we, the Wikipedia community, are the jury) and get an article into article space. There was a draft. The draft should have been kept, but was in good faith also deleted. The deletion of the draft resulted in a deletion review:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 3. Now editors who may be promoters of the film are relying on smoke and mirrors to keep an article. They have also tried to game the naming by introducing multiple versions that have been redirected:
Pathan (Film)
Pathan(film)
Draft:Pathan(2022)
Draft:Draft:Pathan(film)

The current article has been reference-bombed, and the proponents should provide not less than three nor more than five references to make a case for general notability or film notability.

This article should be deleted, and the title should be extended-confirmed protected. One draft should be kept, and can be reviewed when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Different versions of this article have been deleted so many times over the past 3 months, I've never seen this happen with a film before. And the last AFD was just in January, is there a reason it needs a third one to come to the same conclusion to "Delete"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:Liz - You asked whether this really needs a third deletion discussion. I didn't think so either. I tagged it for G4. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathan_(film)&type=revision&diff=1073421754&oldid=1073400833&diffmode=source

- My G4 was removed by User: Shinnosuke15, based on their interpretation of the DRV. They and I disagree as to what the DRV concluded, and the DRV closer wasn't clear on that, but I thought the DRV meant to restore the draft, and they thought that the DRV meant to restore the article. We apparently need a resolution somehow, whether here, another DRV, or at WP:AN or WP:ANI. As to why there are so many versions of the article, there is an ANI on the subject, but it is also not getting much attention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-creation_of_deleted_articles_by_OE1995

- Perhaps this answers your questions about what is going on here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Without blaming anyone, the DRV did not differentiate between restoring/allowing Draft:Pathan (film) and the article Pathan (film). In case you forgot, you declined a G4 on this basis. Another deletion discussion seems necessary to clarify, and a DRV could have procedural objections such as "wrong forum". Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to User:Liz and User:Flatscan - OE1995 has been blocked for two weeks as a result of the ANI. Thank you, User:TomStar81. Maybe now we can finish deleting the crud that they copied. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - My memory is obviously not what it used to be, Flatscan, I made my comment here not recalling either the Deletion Review decision or my action on the recent CSD G4 tagging. This current AFD caught my eye and all I was thinking of was previous versions of this article I had deleted (starting in August 2021) which is why I commented. An editor spends a lot of time editing Wikipedia and after a while, your memories can become jumbled. I should have looked into this more before commenting. At this point, I'm going to step away and see what new editors determine what should be done about the ubiquitous article about the film Pathan. I'd ordinarily say "Draftify" but, as we have seen, the article wouldn't stay in Draft space for more than a few hours before being moved back to main space under a new version of the title. Looking into this now, I came across at least 8 different pages in main space and Draft space that had been used for articles on this film and lots of page moves starting in fall 2021. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that draftify would be the normal approach, but I support whatever measures are needed to stop the disruption. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has asked me for input since I closed the deletion review. The problem is that there are a number of drafts and articles and even in the deletion reviews people didn't distinguish between the various pages. From the comments in the DRV I gather that people wanted initially to restore some version to draftspace, not already to articlespace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as it's a big budget movie and sufficient sources are there. We should check the Sooryavanshi logs, as that movie's Wiki was created in 2019 but the movie released in late 2021. --Priya Ragini (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as the film is legit and has been filming for a long time and was delayed due to the pandemic as most films have been lately. So I don't see the point of deleting it since most upcoming films from all over the world have wiki articles related to them as it has been the case for years on Wikipedia.--meryam90 (talk) 03:32, 28 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!} 23:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Bath Street[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Sources: 1 circular ref, 1 YouTube, 2 performance line-up mentions, 2 local coverage of CD releases (Lancashire Post, University of Central Lancashire) _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a solid go at researching for this article but was unable to find sources with significant coverage. Currently it looks like much of the article's content isn't covered in the references and is sourced from original research, as the author has a connection to the article's subject. So doesn't meet the general notability guideline to do with significant coverage. MadameOctavian (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from not meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, also appears to be a promotional piece by a UPE/COI editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 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 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Karma Worldwide[edit]

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

Charity that doesn't seem to pass the minimum standards of WP:NORG. Newspaper searches and web searches did not yield any coverage that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH. In fact, all I can find are social media profiles controlled by the organisation such as their Twitter and LinkedIn pages, none of these indicate notability. Their founder doesn't have an article so no possibility of turning into a redirect yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, lack of notability. GeekBurst (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, and the article is also written like an advertisement. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while admirable, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Rut[edit]

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

No RS to establish N. All sources are PRIMARY and/or PROMO sources. The publisher of the book cited "MAC Fine Art Corp"[19] is/was a gallery [20] so it is PRIMARY. Theredproject (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above evaluation - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, all refs appear to be either primary sources or unreliable promotional sources. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is not sufficient to meet NBIO/NARTIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This artist does not meet the WP bar for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. I was unable to find SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, nor to substantiate notable collections or exhibitions. Netherzone (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that newly added sources allow the article to meet GNG. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jacobs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Succesful commercial artist, but fails NARTIST. All the sources are is PROMO or PRIMARY. The museum collections are unverfiable: there is no Milwaukee Museum, and the Milwaukee Art Museum does not hold his work [21]; Cobb-Murrieta Museum is not notable, and Petersen Automotive Museum is unverifiable (and an automotive museum, not an art museum).

Bio claims to be the official artist for the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally 17 times but this is unverifiable. What maybe appears to be happening is that Jacobs releases his own "Official Sturgis Rally Painting" [22]? But there is no reference to such a role on the sturgis.com page, just a few promotional posts [23].

The only question here is whether being on the Secret Millionaire TV show meets GNG (is there a SNG for reality TV? doesn't look like it) It seems like the majority of the people on the List of Secret Millionaire (American TV series) episodes do not have pages. Theredproject (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator I'm withdrawing this nomination based on the sources Alansohn uncovered that verify the Sturgis covers and Harley Davidson relationship. Theredproject (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD wasn't on the talk page. I think that is because it was closed as Delete, and the page was subsequently recreated. SO this honestly could have been a speedy G4, if someone wants to go that route. Theredproject (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and previous AfD discussion, clearly not notable. WP:OVERCOME applies here. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim as first Harley Davidson-licensed painter is a rather strong claim of notability as is the fact that his works have been covered in book form. This claim is backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources explicitly about the individual. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: could you post those RS that verify the claim that he was the first Harley Davidson-licensed painter. I was unable to find anything that wasn't a replication of his own promotional biography stating such -- much like I was unable to verify the claims about being the official artist for the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally 17 times. TX.Theredproject (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theredproject, it's been added to the article, as have details and sources about his role as cover artist for the Sturgis rally. Could you read the article and review the sources? Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: I reviewed the sources you uncovered, and will be withdrawing my nomination. Nice research. Theredproject (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per Alansohn. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:28, 27 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!} 23:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piri (1994)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, just an average oil tanker. See this discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Davidships's comment at the discussion linked above; he has explained the references well. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This ship seems to have had a standard working life, and the references do not show that the ship passes the criteria for WP:GNG. Implacable18 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (from my earlier comment, for convenience) Such a tanker could be notable for a number of reasons, if multiple reliable independent sources had written in depth about this ship, but there is not the slightest hint of anything encyclopaedic in the present content, nor in the references give ..... A Gcheck also produced nothing at all. If all that can be produced is basic ship description data for an infobox, I cannot see how that could possibly meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, in this case the creation of the article seems to have been some sort of personal project, with an undeclared interest by a 6-day creator-editor who was a seaman on the ship and took the two photos he placed in the article (see the Commons pages) - no hint of any assertion of notability.

By the way, the article was pointlessly moved from Torben Spirit; that's the name to use for source searching (but beware, there's a more recent ship of the same name). Davidships (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is an average ship.Fulmard (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashneer Grover[edit]

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

End-to-end WP:PROMO, Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. WP:UPE and WP:SPA suspected. This entity's page has been attempted multiple times in the past. It's high time to WP:SALT this page. - Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 22 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)).

Hey, I just saw that you had proposed this page for deletion. Coming to the part of his notability, he is currently discussed most in India as he is one of the judges of the recently successful show Shark Tank India. You can explore on google and see lots of articles covered on him by mainstream Indian media, and even I have attached sources from mainstream media news articles only. There is no promotion/ advertisement, and I am not paid for doing this. The page will improve as more edits are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarshgangulwar (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like an ad, already deleted once for A7 and G11. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think purely from a notability perspective the subject has significance. Efforts of genuine contributors should not be eclipsed by that of marketers trying to get a page. Amitized (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has a ton of coverage in reliable sources Google News. User:Krishfiji (User talk:Krishfiji) 14:00, 23 February 2022 (GMT+12)
Comment: The entity is having high intensity negative coverage on Google News but none of them has been used in creating this page. Even if those negative news has been used, the page would had been duly classified as an "ATTACK PAGE". Besides that, a particular statement in the article "Then by 2018, he established his own company BharatPe" is actually an effort to put an "Strong Assertion" about his ownership to drive a counter narrative against the other owners and investors of the company (as both the camps are currently involved in ownership battle). Secondly, the whole page has subtle bend towards what the entity wants others to perceive about him, a classic WP:NPOV violation which we can make it out by the following statement (in the article); Grover claimed that it's a fake audio by “some scamster trying to extort funds (USD 2,40,000 bitcoins)” and added that he “refused to buckle.” -Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies WP:NBIO. Coverage of Grover includes BharatPe, the ongoing controversy including him and his wife, the controversy over the Nykaa IPO, his role on Shark Tank India and also there has been coverage about him being the primary entity in numerous memes. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm confused at the moment. A plethora of coverage exists there about "his wife" (okay) but notability is not inherited but there is seriously an abundance of coverage on him in several reliable sources like ThePrint, Mint, Indian Express and Hindustan Times, and I'm not able to review them independently right now. Most likely I'll take some time in the morning and be back with my analysis. Best, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page Sources Analysis (the ones which are existing on the page, as on February 27, 2022)

Source Sites	Links	Written by Staff Writer	Reliability as per WP:RS	Remark
Jagran Josh	LINK	NO, it is written by an independent blogger Arfa Javaid	NO	Promotional WP:PROMO
DNA (newspaper)	LINK	NO	NO	Promotional WP:PROMO
DNA (newspaper)	LINK	NO	NO	Promotional WP:PROMO
The Indian Express	LINK	NO	YES	Promotional WP:PROMO
NDTV	LINK	YES	NO	PASSABLE MENTION (about a legal case) / WP:ROUTINE
YouTube	LINK	NO	NO (WP:NOYT)	Promotional WP:PROMO, a sponsored vlog on an influencers' channel
ThePrint	LINK	YES	NO	PASSABLE MENTION (about a legal case) / WP:ROUTINE
Business Today (India)	LINK	NO	NO	BORDELINE PASS or FAIL WP:SIGCOV (as it was not written by staff writer)

-Hatchens (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page building is nothing but a coordinated approach to control and manage the reputation of this entity which has taken a beating lately. In the page, as well as, in this discussion IDs are trying to justify his fame through Shark Tank India which is nothing but to use the "Shark Tank Fame to Ride Out BharatPe Controversy". If his real controversies are used; the page can be easily expanded but that will not be allowed by his team because as we speak (at this moment), the AfD tag was duly removed by an WP:SPA - Srander.

Also, kindly note, if we look at through the Shark Tank India's angle; this entity's co-patriots a.k.a. other judges/sharks - there had been constant effort to get the individual pages up in last couple of months and most of them had been either rejected, blocked or protected; Anupam Mittal (PP protected), Draft:Aman Gupta and his company Draft:BoAt , Namita Thapar (creator of the page blocked for covert advertising), Peyush Bansal (required administrator access, indefinite), and Vineeta Singh's company SUGAR Cosmetics (deleted multiple times). We can easily conclude, this is either a coordinated effort at an entity's individual level or combined effort on behalf Shark Tank India to get Wikipedia pages for all above mentioned entities in a single time-frame. -Hatchens (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of sheer desperation Srander has attempted to perform non-admin closure of this discussion. That too they have failed to execute because of lack of expertise. -Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Peyush Bansal was deleted three times between 2015 and 2017. The last attempts at creating Namita Thapar and SUGAR Cosmetics were in 2020. All of this happened well before Shark Tank India was even conceptualised. BoAt makes a very reasonable claim for notability (market leader; decent media coverage; filed papers to go public a few weeks ago), although that was not the case when it was first deleted in 2019. The only pages published during this timeframe are of three sharks, viz. Grover, Mittal and Gupta. It seems like newbie editors were influenced by Shark Tank's popularity and the social media memefest that it has triggered, and decided to create articles for them without understanding the notability criteria. This is consistent with what happens on Wikipedia when reality shows are being aired. I would recommend assuming good faith here, unless you have evidence to support loaded claims like there being a "coordinated effort" to push these articles. M4DU7 (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about Indian Entrepreneur. As he is currently one of the most discussed Entity in Indian Media. The page has sufficient reliable source and not about promoting someone as it has criticism too. Srander 17:11, 37 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Deb (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Per nominator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve He is co-founder of well-known brand BharatPe and recently he came a public figure on Shark Tank India. I saw lot of useless wikipedia page for many unpopular peoples than why not him. I suggest to keep the page and improve it with reliable source. Religiousmyth (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is one of the thousands entrepreneur in India. Some coverege in the entertainment news portals as he was a grumpy "shark" in a reality TV show. Neurofreak (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. I can see why some of the keep voters and commenters are confused. Grover has been in the news every single day on every single news outlet for the past couple of months. He has become a household name thanks to the string of controversies, so I'm not surprised that people have tried to create an article for him. However, being in the news alone does not confer notability; the coverage has mostly revolved around controversies, which can be covered at BharatPe for now. Looked at the edit history but couldn't find any attempt to whitewash the article; the controversies have been there since the article was created. Therefore I would assume good faith and not cast aspersions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:03, 2 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. ✗plicit 00:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Money Guaranty[edit]

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

Poorly-referenced stub on a non-notable company. Of the three sources cited, one is the company's own website, and another doesn't work. A search finds nothing beyond a couple of blog entries and other passing mentions, press releases etc. content issued by the company, and the usual social media accounts and directory listings. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like a potential COI/UPE situation, the creating editor has only published two articles, on related companies; this one, and Numismatic Guaranty Company. I'll query that. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of the 3 sources listed, 1 is dead, 1 is the company side, and 1 is a press release. Having done a google search, I can only find general company information sides, and what appear to be more industry press release. There’s no coverage in any notable newspapers.GeekBurst (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Run of the mill stories. Never heard of this company in SWFL. – The Grid (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage and what is there is not good, as other editor said above, dead, Press release, etc. Zeddedm (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned, article is Poorly-referenced, lack of significant coverage in independent websites. Misasory (talk) 20:50, 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 keep. No rationale was given for deletion. (non-admin closure) Heanor (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Office[edit]

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

I propose to redirect this DAB page to De facto embassy#Liaison Offices. Thesmp (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, and South Korea. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no rational given for this proposal. It's a valid dab page listing specific articles. MB 16:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid disambig page with 5 other articles it could be referring to. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no rationale given for deletion. In the future, please explain why you'd like a DAB page to be deleted. Pilaz (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to W. W. Herenton. ✗plicit 00:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Herenton (basketball)[edit]

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his famous grandfather. There are a decent amount of sources, but most revolve around his being the grandson of a civil rights leader and/or local puff pieces. Not a notable basketball player who does not appear to have played professionally. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage seems to be either trivial (like local high school human interest pieces) or not independent (Miami Hurricanes produced stories). Rikster2 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has stories about him in at least 2 major newspapers - the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune. Miami Herald is independent of the Miami Hurricanes and not local to his high school. While Chicago Tribune is local to his high school it is hardly a small town paper writing about a local boy making good, it is a major newspaper in a massive market that chose to write stories about this particular high school student out of 1000s of local students multiple times. Rlendog (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the Chicago Sun-Times, another major albeit local newspaper, also wrote at least one article about him, although it is behind a pay wall. Rlendog (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the nomination seems to misread WP:NOTINHERITED. NOTINHERITED says that "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar." Since Hereton passes GNG by virtue of articles about him in at least 3 major independent, reliable sources, NOTINHERITED would not preclude his notability, even if those articles were solely about his relationship with his grandfather and didn't discuss his basketball playing (but of course they do the latter anyway). If Hereton was not covered in any reliable sources, then merely saying that he is notable because his grandfather is famous would run afoul of NOTINHERITED. Rlendog (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herenton has accomplished essentially nothing as a basketball player - he was a walk-on at Miami. Most articles I've seen about him mention in the context of his grandfather. I did not make the argument that there were no sources available, but there was not enough to sustain a separate article. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to having a mention of him in his grandfather's article. And if there was more about his life since he averaged 1.2 points per game as a senior, I might reconsider as well, but I'm not seeing it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum there is sourced material that can be merged to his grandfather's article. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no objection to a redirect to his grandfathers article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see lots of local coverage of his high school career, but nothing that shows me that any WP notability criteria is met. I don't believe WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS is met. No objections to putting something brief in his grandfather's article. Papaursa (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Nadar[edit]

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

There is nothing showing that Nadar was a notable enough businessman to merit an article. The only source we have here is attributed to his company, and in fact that article was a verbatim repeat of what seems to be a press relase, complete with unencyclopdic language and a style inconsistent with our manual of style, until I edited it a few minutes ago. I was not able to find any additional sources about him, just a facebook page and a few similar sources on his company. Nothing at all indicates a passing of any of our inclusion criteria John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Delete: ~~Straight copyvio: report~~ Reverse copying actually so not copyvio, still unnotable per nom. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search in English, Hindi, and Tamil found no coverage of Nadar at all. Unless there are non-English sources that I'm missing, Nadar seems to fail our notability guidelines by a wide margin. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 1 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Beyne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Known from just WP:ONEEVENT. The Banner talk 09:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is all pageant focused. We lack coverage truly giving significant coverage to her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep French Belgian sources discuss her work as a presenter on a TV show starting in 2020, more than enough mention of her as a pageant winner and subsequent career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article states she participated in three beauty pageant events, including e.g. Miss Belgium (Getty, Jan. 2012), Miss Universe (Getty, Dec. 2012), and there are sources that could expand the article and support WP:BASIC notability in addition to the more recent sources, e.g. BET "Laura Beyne, 19, became the second Black Miss Belgium when she won the Miss Belgium 2012 competition earlier this month.", Black Beauty Queens Have Broken Barriers (The Root, 2013). Per the Wikiproject Beauty Pageants essay on notability, Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are [...] generally presumed to be notable. Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an attempt to turn that into an actual inclusion standard, and it was very resoundly defeated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A preliminary round and a main round still belongs to one event. The Banner talk 19:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added new info and her credentials as a TV show host and bunch of new citations. As such she meets WP:ENT, not only with her TV host career, but also as Miss Belgium.Caphadouk (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. WP:NBEAUTY is an essay and does not change the fact that the only "real" standard is WP:GNG - extrapolating a biography from links on photos, as above, is also WP:OR. The current coverage of her nascent TV career does not, in my opinion, establish notability. It is possible that she may become notable in the future, but I am certainly not convinced at the moment. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:26, 10 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 // 13:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to be sourced enough to meet the notability guidelines. Also, she has began a career as a TV show host and such, so the notable of one event guideline does not apply. I sees sources including BET and other French sources dated to different dates. Seems good enough to keep to me. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 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 14:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Rekha[edit]

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

RJ Rekha

Non-notable radio disk jockey. Naïve Google search shows that she exists, and that she has this Wikipedia page. (It is not clear why the page is indexed.) This article was moved back from article space to draft space by User:Spiderone with the edit summary, "Not a single reliable source used". It was then moved back to article space. It still has two unreliable sources, YouTube and IMDB, and no reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fancruft. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article has been created as a reduced copy of the page (and with no additions) that existed earlier at the same title. In the earlier version, it had started as a draft by the same creator, moved to article space, tagged for WP:G11 by Praxidicae, and deleted by Anthony Bradbury as G11 and WP:A7. Jay (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strongly support deletion. No reliable sources present which is unacceptable for a WP:BLP. I sent this to draft space so that, if sourcing does exist, it would give the creator the time to find appropriate sources and cite them. Given that it's been edit warred back I presume the creator wants us to assess the case as is. I have complied with WP:BEFORE anyway and found nothing better than her own social media. Even her social media profiles don't make any real argument for notability, with very low follower counts on all. I found her CV at Voice Artistes but this won't help the article's cause. Probably WP:A7 worthy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable radio/television personality. No GNG-worthy sources found in BEFORE search, in both Hindi and English. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet in their career. I hope one day, new editors will realize that moving an article to Draft space is saving them from being quickly deleted, where they will have time to improve the article, not a punishment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from not being notable, was created by a UPE/COI editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Deb (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhrubajyoti Sarkar[edit]

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

Again another promotional article by the same user. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR too. I am 100% sure this is WP:UPE. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. User also isn't responding on their talk page to multiple warnings about paid editing, giving more reason to believe this. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing NACTOR; having linked articles is not enough. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neither the subject is meeting WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG independently. ManaliJain (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delte - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 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 03:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Cantonese-related articles[edit]

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

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per deletion of the China index as well as this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The index in question is tiny and not maintained. Would have prodded, but the AFD route was tried already in 2007. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cantonese (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. It is useful to preserve the content and history because the items in this list can give editors ideas about how they can expand and improve articles such as Cantonese, Cantonese people, and Cantonese culture. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all other recent examples. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would prefer a redirect over deletion so that the article's useful history and content are retained. An alternative to deletion would be to move this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Index of Cantonese-related articles so that the content is preserved. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like other same articles. NavjotSR (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a useful search term. I highly doubt any future editors will look through the history of an obscure redirect in order to expand an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 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 keep. The consensus is that the place meets GEOLAND; discussion of a potential merger or redirect may be taken up on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pelliceira[edit]

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

While technically passing WP:GEOLAND, as a subdivision of the municipality of Ibias I propose redirecting there. Its votes, for example, are counted through its municipality rather than through itself so the legal authority that satisfies GEOLAND might be very weak. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the German Wikipedia article its also a settlement, while it may not be like a civil parish it at least has a stated population so may satisfy GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It passes WP:GEOLAND. I added more content (translated from the ES-WP article), an inline citation, and 2 images. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree it does pass GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja 'Podaras11' = Flutterby Lavender[edit]

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

The first article in this AfD, Buddleja 'Podaras11' = Flutterby Lavender, was kept at AfD in 2012 under the premise, not supported by policy, that having a comprehensive documentation of Buddleja cultivars was valuable, whether they met WP:GNG or not. Per strong recent consensus, this is no longer considered the case, and cultivars/hybrids/other minor ranks are expected to meet GNG in order for an article to be retained. (Please see the discussion at WT:PLANTS, the unanimously-deleted cultivar AfDs listed here as well as another bundled AfD).

In my opinion GNG is not met here. The first source is a patent, which is primary/not independent. The second isn't unreliable, but I'm not sure I'd call it significant coverage. Everything that came up on a search of the sales name or the actual name was a commercial listing or otherwise trivial. A single RS isn't enough to keep this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles are in the same "Flutterby" series of cultivars, so I may as well do them all at once, as they all have similar sourcing problems.

Buddleja 'Podaras1' = Flutterby Grande Vanilla

Buddleja 'Podaras3' = Flutterby Grande Tangerine Dream

Buddleja 'Podaras6' = Flutterby Peace

Buddleja 'Podaras9' = Flutterby Pink

Buddleja 'Podaras10' = Flutterby Petite Dark Pink

Buddleja 'Podaras12' = Flutterby Flow Lavender

Buddleja 'Podaras13' = Flutterby Petite Tutti Fruitti Pink

Buddleja 'Podaras15' = Flutterby Petite Snow White

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keep on pruning (pun intneded) these cultivar lists. PianoDan (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to say about these cultivars, no sources other than catelogues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SIGCOV is needed, and catalogues do not pass that requirement. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable with a fall back position of merging all of them into a single reasonably written article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging has been discussed in the previous discussions, and is generally not considered a suitable option for these cultivars - there are hundreds of Buddleja cultivars, and very very few have sufficient reliable sourcing to even be worth merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 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. ✗plicit 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lapizh[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:BIO - no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Current references are unreliable and/or closely affiliated with the subject Paul W (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it shouldn´t be deleted as references news sites, and shows proof of a well searched and known person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hytrons (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief introductory message at [24], and paid promotional announcement at [25] (see the peacock terms that would not be used by legit journalists), do not constitute the significant and reliable coverage that is necessary for notability in Wikipedia. Beyond those two brief media mentions, the person is only present in the typical social media and self-promotional sites, and Wikipedia is not for that purpose. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Sources are 2 seemingly-paid-promo articles, the subject's homepage, and lyrics for a song. No reliable sources and no visible notability. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely lacking in independent coverage for WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC either Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO, in addition, appears to be UPE as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no inline citations and I can't find any to add. I am not finding any online sources. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. seems more like WP:PROMO. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have added a couple of sources, many more are available, has had icons on display in major cathedrals etc, clearly notable as an exponent of this specialised field. PamD 09:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the Fulcrum Anglican not such a great source as it claims it was "republished, with permission, from The Times, 28 March 2009". The original article is Twiston Davies, Bess. "A brilliant window into the divine and the eternal". p. 96. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rearranged the citations provided by PamD, including the questionable Twiston-Davies article. I removed some text that I couldn't reference. Pinging Vexations to have another look at the article. I still don't know if this artist is notable. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was "questionable" about the reprint of the Times article, unless you don't AGF and suspect that the republished version was a fake... but I've now checked the Times original via Wikipedia Library and have added that ref, with its different title, though the freely-available online copy is a bonus for the reader who hasn't got access to the Times behind its paywall. PamD 23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD and per the near-snow Keep result in 2006. Nomination concerns now seem fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concerns in the deletion rationale appear to have been resolved. NemesisAT (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the place meets GEOLAND; discussion of a potential merger may be taken up on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KharKhari Jatmal[edit]

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

on its own this article is insubstantial, suggest moving this to an entry under South West Delhi district. STC1 _talk 09:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. STC1 _talk 09:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:GEOLAND. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 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 speedy delete. WP:G7 and WP:G11 deleted by User:Deepfriedokra. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Sree[edit]

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

Has had plenty of press releases on a variety of websites, which probably cost her a fair amount of money! As WP:GNG requires the coverage to be reliable and independent of the subject, we have to exclude paid-for coverage. In my searches, I found only two articles that were not an exact copy and paste of the cited press release and these were Hindustan Times (a brand post) and a very promotional blog post in Media Hindustan. I couldn't find any significant coverage in WP:RS that wasn't paid for. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Internet, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plz Don't delete i can make changes according to policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmdAsjad (talk • contribs) 09:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to make changes to the article as this discussion progresses. This edit was unacceptable, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly plz tell what should I change — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmdAsjad (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start by removing all the press releases and replacing them with articles that Sree hasn't paid for. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a PR effort to get the subject noticed. Fails WP:NBIO. Paul W (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are changes should I change? AhmdAsjad (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly plz delete the page AhmdAsjad (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Also, the creator and only substantial author (90.7%) requested deletion above. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7/G11 Pure promotional. I have tagged the page for G11 and G7 as the creator has requested deletion. Jumpytoo Talk 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will if someone else formally closes this. Been a long time.18:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)~~

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Ninja Video[edit]

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

Lacks notability. There is the one interview from "grumpire", but otherwise there is very little to be found in general[26], and absolutely nothing from Google News[27]. Grumpire doesn't seem to be an especially noteworthy source either, more a blog (the Gold Ninja Video interview, from 26 January, is apparently the most recent post on the site[28]). Fram (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of indepth coverage by reliable sources. 11:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikavoom (talk • contribs)
Delete there is not enough coverage, a few sources are Twitter and Youtube, etc. Zeddedm (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Presidente Hayes, Paraguay[edit]

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

This Yellow Pages directory of non-notable schools should be deleted for the same reasons as many of the others in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paraguay/archive, most of which were deleted with no opposition. All of these violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and there is no evidence of WP:LISTN being met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Paraguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Non notable unsourced lists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all from what I can tell none of these are blue linked, sourced to reliable references that discuss them as a group or set, and so there's zero reason to keep any of them. Since they all clearly fail the notability guidelines for lists. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all such lists serve no encyclopedic purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would suggest to merge to the articles for the cities themselves, but some of those are so minimal that there is no place for this level of detail about one aspect. Lamona (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would also ask anyone thinking about a merge to search for reliable sources as these lists are mostly unsourced currently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 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 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Ramirez (Inventor)[edit]

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

Not notable. One article from the local newspaper, no further interest found online. Fram (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google searches show little more than the Redding article and the patents (and a mention in a candle-making discussion forum is not reliable). Paul W (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one local newspaper promotional article is not enough to justify us having an article, and not really even a source from which a truly encyclopedic article could be built.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Douch[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Article is full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Douch clearly does not pass the GNG, and I'm not seeing any argument for notability under WP:NPROF: he doesn't hold a named chair, he's only been cited a few dozen times, and there's no evidence that he has received any significant award or distinction. Unless there's something I'm missing, Douch does not seem to be notable (which is perhaps partially explained by the fact that this is apparently an autobiography). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few citations, which is not a good sign in a field like economics. I also don't see significant independent coverage of him. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. The autobio issue is just another reason to delete. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 28 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!} 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Lombardi[edit]

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

Unable to find any decent sources. No news articles, no album reviews, no profiles in RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has been releasing music under the "NiftySax" (or Nifty Sax) stage name.^[1]^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.171.214.179 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 15 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!} 05:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A profile at the reliable All About Jazz helps a bit, but Lombardi seems to have made a career as a sideman with little distinct coverage of his own. As suggested by a commenter above, he has issued some work under the name Nifty Sax, but those are self-released and note how the article already says that he is reliant on crowdfunding. He simply has not received the coverage needed for notability here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

118 Reunion[edit]

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

Non notable show. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As a continuation of the successful series. However, recongising that there're limited coverage/reviews, instead of deletion, the article may be merged into 118 II instead. – robertsky (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a review has been added to enable a reception section but only one outlet so a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is only one reference, but I am not opposed to a merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:06, 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!} 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
will a redirect be amiable to you? – robertsky (talk) 03:15, 1 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. ✗plicit 03:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Round Iceland[edit]

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

Potential WP:SYNTH or lack of WP:N. If topic is notable, it does not appear to be WP:COMMONNAME, as WP:BEFORE search did find use of the term in this context of a sailing record. Reference on page does have a time for Hringur um Ísland, but I don't see results for a sailing record when searching for that, either. Long-standing article about topics I know nothing about involving potential foreign references, so seemed worth bringing to AfD instead of PROD. Ost (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I did both a Google search and a search on timarit.is, which is an excellent archive of most Icelandic print media. This article in Morgunblaðið was the only coverage I could find on the subject. I was able to find archived version of their website here from 2005. By 2007, the website was gone. All indications are that this was a one-off thing that didn't receive much attention. Alvaldi (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where is the WP:THREE? 209.201.121.4 (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Maybe Merge I would say delete for its own page. If there is more, or this is a growing thing in terms of notability, may be better to merge on a Sailing/Iceland page. ContentEditman (talk) 22:17, 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League annual passing interception leaders[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unsourced, to boot. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 01:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow!. I don't know whether or not this passes NLIST, but how in the world did Vinny Testaverde throw 35 INTs in 1988 and not get sent packing? Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not even the all-time record. George Blanda threw 42 picks in 14 games in 1962. See here. Sheesh. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a failure of WP:LISTN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~On fence, but leaning keep~~ The formatting and sourcing issues are easily fixable. This is not a bizarro stat category, and it strikes me as being as notable as many of the other annual NFL leaders lists we already have. E.g., defensive INTs, completion percentage, sacks, forced fumbles, punting yards, kickoff return yards, punt return yards, etc. I would be pushed over the fence to a clear "Keep" if we can find coverage showing there is coverage of this year to year. Cbl62 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems like the best option in line with comments below. It is incomplete and needs sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at least the items in the list are blue links, which is more then can be said for a lot of other lists. So I'm leaning toward going with keep, but it would be helpful if there was some actual coverage of this year to year. I'm not going to be super surprised if this is ultimately deleted given that there doesn't seem to be any. Since it's extremely borderline without it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, it's a work in progress at this point. It'd be better as a draft until it's completed and formatted properly. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form, but maybe Merge all yearly passing leader stats into one list/table similar to List of NCAA major college football yearly passing leaders? Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now. If there's evidence that this stat has year-to-year coverage, I would be persuaded to keep, but not as of right now. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 14:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify An NFL seasonal record might have enough coverage to meet WP:LISTN, but negative stats (like interceptions thrown) tend to not receive the coverage that positive stats do (like passing yards). This article is certainly not ready for main space as is. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Notable topic and I'm sure the sources exist, but not to the standards of a Wikipedia article as currently written. Frank Anchor 15:04, 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 speedy delete. The text was copied and pasted from the subject's own autobiography on the subject's own WWW site, by two accounts one of which has a name that closely resembles the subject's own WWW site, and then someone else who clearly had views about the subject added several personal observations. There's no sense in wasting any more time on this. It's inappropriate in a whole bunch of ways, and none of this entire edit history is suitable for use in a proper encyclopaedia article, which would need to blank everything here and start from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles D. Hayes[edit]

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

Very resume-like and filled with puffery. Likely COI editing. All sources are either non-independent or primary. The best source is this interview with NPR, but, once again, is a primary source and does not contribute to notability. Appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and California. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Also, "Charles D. Hayes is an unabashed liberal who professes to being a self-taught philosopher and one of America’s strongest advocates for lifelong learning." That's just...rough. KidAd • SPEAK 01:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article needing to go. It fails the gng. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 06:11, 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. None of the those who argued for keeping the article were able to successfully challenge HighKing's source analysis. Many of the keep !votes were only appeals to subjective measures of importance while the case for deletion was rooted in WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petzone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Based on discussion with HighKing at Talk:Petzone... the entity fails at WP:NCORP and PR/advertisements-based articles are masquerading as news i.e., WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion to generate a wider and unbiased consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 31 January 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)).

Speedy keep. First of all, as someone in the Middle East who knows a lot about which kinds of chain stores are notable and which ones are not -- this is the largest pet store in Kuwait with various stores in other countries as well, so there's no way that Petzone would fail WP:NCORP. It's equivalent to Petco and PetSmart in the US. With multiple features in the Gulf News, Arab Times, Kuwait Times, The National, and other top-tier newspapers in the Gulf, these are not definitely not press releases at all. Also they're notable enough to have made it onto the Arabic and Persian versions, which are both now quite tough on notability standards and anti-advertising policies. I would suggest taking a closer look at this before considering deletion. Hawawshibread (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawawshibread, Not enough good reasons. Could you justify your statements with relevant Wikipedia guidelines? -Hatchens (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they don't seem notable in the Anglosphere, but visiting the references on Google or just doing a simple search of their nameshows they are notable in Arabic-speaking countries, with in-depth articles about them on major news sites (not just blogs). Not all Citations are paid as there is a winning award in their niche segment so isn't a reason to delete the page, as the article isn't defamatory - either ignore it and leave it to someone else or check the references and remove the irrelevant ones. They also have articles on Persian and Tagalog Wikipedia in addition to animal welfare support which seems to be important to their community. Humble84 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if those arguing for keeping the article could point to some reliable sources discussing the topic. These sources need not be in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. I looked at those currently cited and all appear to be not independent or not reliable, or don't provide significant coverage. The Arabic Wikipedia article was deleted, and the other languages only cite sources that are in the English article. A865 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ here a reliable source in Arabic that shows they are notable with contributions for local comunity in a top-tier mainstream Al Qabas click to veiw plus they do have an award in their niche buisness which shows that they are known in their segment.Humble84 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

double vote struck. Further evidence allowed, of course. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, of course non of us like a page who created to be deleted after a big effort and that also frankly make my vote less weighted here in your discussion. My ponit of view that they have the following reilaible and independant souces:

1.click to veiw 2._ click to veiw 3._ click to veiw 4.click to veiw End of the day I respect all of your opinions and your decision whether to keep or delete it.Regards Darksheild (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly all these three IDs are WP:SPA - Hawawshibread, Humble84 and Darksheild. A closer examination is required. -Hatchens (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not seeing sources presented that really satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:ORGDEPTH upon inspection currently. This is the only source that helps the case a bit that I've seen, but it comes across more as a press release.

While we don't have to follow what other language wikis do, the unsourced claims by other commenters that this is one of the largest pet stores or equivalent to PetSmart seems to fall if even the Arabic article was deleted. KoA (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I confess that I am animal lover and have a bias for all things pet related. The company has been mentioned by a reputable source - Gulf News ^[1]. However the article is more about the terrible event rather than a focus on the company. This is a list of what probably was a curated list by an author^[2]InfiNeuro (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment:I see that they contribute to animal welfare in 3rd world countrires like Middle East plus support animals rights and community education in non profit way. I feel that wikipedia community should take a look to the importance of this topic rather than other factors. Last but not least I am not a sockpuppet for any user here!Humble84 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Policy based non SPA votes would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.

I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obviously not e.g. blogs, social media, etc) 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. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria as follows.

This from Kuwait Business Review has no accredited author/journalist and is a "puff profile" containing sentences such as "sharpening their team's focus on achieving the company goals". It is basically an advertisement and reads like copy produced by, or in conjunction with, the company. There is no evidence of any "Independent Content" and there is also a lack of in-depth information on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from The Magazine Plus is a press release from IssueWire (a Press Release Distribution Network). Not "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND
This from VetHub is based entirely on a company announcement which is acknowledged in the headline and has no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.
This from PetQuip contains no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. The award is not significant and doesn't contribute to notability.
This from Kuwait News Agency is a mere mention-in-passing with insignificant in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
This from Gulf News is a list which includes a description provided by topic company itself, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This from the Kuwait Times has no attributed journalist and is a "puff profile" and an advertisement masquerading as news, fails ORGIND
This from 248am is a blog post from community website, fails as a reliable source.
This from Arab Times is a reprint of the same article from Kuwait News Agency above, fails for the same reasons as above
This from TimeOut Dubai is a list of "pet-friently" places in Dubai which mentions the topic company. Fails CORPDEPTH
This from Buffalo News is from Issuewire and is a Press Release, fails ORGIND
This from Kuwait Times is the same article as this in Kuwait24hours and is a "puff profile", entirely promotional relying on information provided by the company and quotes from anonymous staff. Fails ORGIND.
This from Kuwait Local is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH.
This from TimeOut Dubai is another list which mentions the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from National News Lifestyle is a mere mention, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Bayut is a list which mentions (one of the stores of) the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Gulf News describes how a kitten was treated at a veterinary clinic run by the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from What's On says that stray cats can be brought to the topic company's veterinary clinic at Sheikh Zayed Road from November 17 to 19. Fails CORPDEPTH
This from Alqabas.com (which was mentioned above also) mentions the company in passing. Fails CORPDEPTH

In summary, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd like it if we covered more businesses in countries outside North America and Europe, but we do need reliable sources independent of the subject providing some in-depth coverage. The links provided are, well, HighKing summarizes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we seem to have rather double-standards about businesses. I nominate an ice-cream outlet in New York for deletion because the only sources are passing mentions, interviews and churnalism, and I get a stiff reminder that WP has no policy on interviews, only an essay. Parallel situation with the largest pet-store chain in Kuwait, and suddenly we're a lot more careful about sources. It'd be nice were we consistent. Elemimele (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Link? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems from the last comment that you notability here is subjective topic and what you applied here you do not apply there! You cannot compare the covarge momentum for regional Kuwaiti company to North American ones and in this case you will not add buisnesses from outside. For the animal rights in 3rd world country you should seriously consider keeping it elsewise it is all up to you.Humble84 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is more (better/more references) I don't see this as notable for a single page at this time. ContentEditman (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the keep voters here. Seems to be a big store in Kuwait based on the citations. kuwaittimes is a good one and from top Kuwait publication. This is also indepth. Plus I found THIS additional citation in Google news. Possibly there are also Arabic citations that none of us are finding, since it doesn't seem anyone here speaks Arabic. Zeddedm (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasoning of "seems like a big store" doesn't appear in our guidelines so irrelevant. The KuwaitTimes piece is a puff profile which relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from an anonymous "store manager". It is also irrelevant that it is from "top Kuwait publication" once it is a reliable source - we need the content to meet certain criteria and this doesn't. The next one you say is "also indepth" but it has no attributable journalist (red flag for WP:RS) and is another puff profile fill of peacock terms and descriptions such as "From their humble beginnings" and "PetZone’s expertise in enhanced pet care provided customers with the best and most sought after international brands that are available in the market", etc. The additional citation found in Google News is marked as "Partner Content" and was produced by the company - impossible to miss - so fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. This is a paid for PR piece sourced to PR pieces with no in depth coverage. Sources in Arabic are equally as lackluster (and Alaa, a native speaker has previously said as much.) These sources are largely blackhat SEO and the ones that aren't are blatant press releases and passing mentions. CUPIDICAE💕 19:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this should be g4'd - it is word for word identical to the previous iteration - the only difference it's created by a new sock with new fake news sources. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the largest chain of pet stores in Middle East and will be in wikipedia sooner or later so better you guys accept it now than to accept it by force later.188.71.240.8 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If by "force" you mean that there will be multiple high-quality, independent sources giving in-depth coverage about the topic, then I think the editors here will applaud that as wonderful! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the article is written with no marketing or promotion language plus this store is well known in GCC. Enogh sources and citations came in organic way also without promotion or paid intentions.188.70.15.244 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HighKing's source analysis is spot-on, and my searches could not identify any coverage that would meet the strictures of WP:NCORP. There is no indication that genuinely independent reliable sources have afforded significant coverage to this company. I hope the closer looks beyond the !vote count here: there are serious issues with the keep !votes, both with regard to strength of argument and with regard to possible SPAs/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. (I note that two keep !voters have already been indeffed for sockpuppetry.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I check the citations and seems to me many are significant and organic. It is a store chain so we should not except super rich news about such topics in general. This store is quite popular and well known in GCC and thet really add a big improvemnt on pet care industry in middle east.188.71.218.177 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disgree with a vote about blackhat SEO. Many links are not paid and there is a wining award in addition to mainstream citations. My undsrstanding it passes WP:NCORP.185.247.91.12 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Kuwaiti petshop? Grief. Clear fail of WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing's analysis above. Seems like there's so much of "IP-sockpuppetry" over here. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 12:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is about a non-notable pet shop! Clearly fail WP:NCORP.

Ahmed ^(talk) 14:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I see that the voting here is in favour of deleting it although the entity is notable in their niche. For the vote who mention a Kuwaiti pet store? ... this store also have 3 big location in UAE and one of the first ones too!212.70.119.234 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NCORP and on suspicion of being partly promotional. Certainly, an unwarranted number of anons have shown up to !vote without rationales. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 3 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 keep. Arguments followed a very linear pattern from Delete to Redirect to Keep. Follows the WP:HEY standard. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Ramsay[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.102.207 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games." Ramsay has not. All the other stuff is non-notable and unsourced. WWGB (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre butterfly per WP:CHEAP; subject's only pop. Nate • (chatter) 02:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre butterfly. Clear indication of WP:CHEAP. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 06:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per previous suggestions. Paul W (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep So far I have found 2016 article and from The Courier-Mail, this from the The Cairns Post in addition to the nine existing references for the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As above to Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics ContentEditman (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not everything in the Australian media comes up in a Google search. Hack (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG, thanks to recent expansion by User:Hack. Jevansen (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (thanks User:Hack). Also note WP:SPORTBASIC: "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level". Also now meets WP:GNG (with at least [[29]] and [[30]]). Cabrils (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the coverage is sustained enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current referencing in the article covers a span of 2000 to 2013 and additional referencing brought up in this AfD include coverage from reliable sources from 2016 and 2020. GPL93 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But is there anything from the last week? Jevansen (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jevansen, he is mentioned in McEachern, Peta (22 February 2022), "Full list: 30 of Ipswich's most influential identities under 30 revealed", The Queensland Times. :) duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The National Library of Australia has a book of cuttings on him. [Biographical cuttings on Heath Ramsay, sportsman, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals], 1900, retrieved 25 February 2022 duffbeerforme (talk) 04:30, 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.