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 00:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Hardy[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. An unremarkable career in media. Coverage mainly confirms she appeared on Big Brother. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Women, Radio, Television, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 23:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of hits, none from reliable sources, mostly tabloids, in GNews. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if we consider her as an actress as she appeared in Big Brothers, as per WP:NACTOR she fails. We cannot get her passing as we apply sigcov. Cirton (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Fails WP:ACTOR. Essentially a non-notable person who appeared in a TV reality show 20 years ago, and now works in radio. And very unlikely to become notable on her current trajectory. Cabrils (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:BP, and WP:MILL. It is well-settled for over a decade that only the win/place/show in reality show contests are presumed notable. This page is a mashup of a BLP violations. The claims in the article are especially vague. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really don't see how she passes WP:NBIO; a google search is not able to reveal sources that would make her able to pass and I don't suspect that sources only available in print will change the notability calculation. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 7 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 00:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Zalph[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and lacks significant coverage. Only source is a column written by the subject's cousin. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just want to say that just because we can't find much on the internet doesn't mean the article's subject fails GNG. The article's subject lived before mass adoption of the internet. That being said, I'm not able to find much so may fail GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 22:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've tried the NY Times back files. He's listed in this article with the title: Senate Unit Finds Red Link in Press. But he just gets a mention in a list of people brought up before the committee who took the fifth. He's mentioned in another similar article, just a name check. He also is listed in the Senate report. Unfortunately he was just one of many hundreds who were hounded during the red scare of the 1950's, and he wasn't important enough, as far as I can tell, to merit more biographical information. Lamona (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Sadly, one of hundreds who were blacklisted. The only source in the article is self-published by his cousin, and the two sources since found by Lamona are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I suggest keeping a revised version of this page. True he is one of many pursued in the 1950s "loyalty" hearings but his testimony is notable for its citation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the First and Fifth, in support of his refusal to answer questions. Sources (at least one of which would need to be added to the page) are the published transcript of the testimony: https://books.google.com/books?id=z6B9imvD-P0C&pg=PA1014&lpg=PA1014&dq, and this article in CQ Press: https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal56-1347749, as well as other newspaper sources including the Galveston Daily News: https://newspaperarchive.com/galveston-daily-news-jan-05-1956-p-2/ and the Billings Gazette: https://newspaperarchive.com/billings-gazette-jan-05-1956-p-1/ . I've been unable to find any reference to any other "loyalty" hearing witness citing the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. His reliance on the Ninth Amendment in the loyalty hearings seems noteworthy in light of the limited history of use of this Amendment prior to the hearings, and the Amendment's more recent growing prominence, as reflected by its later discussion in Supreme Court decisions and the recent statement by US President Joseph Biden to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wanted "a Supreme Court candidate with a judicial philosophy 'that suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/23/supreme-court-ninth-amendment-bork-biden-00010847. (Full disclosure: I am a family member.)

Editor 5050 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Removing the sentence in the article explaining why the subject's brother is notable would reduce the size of the stub by 25%. After this much time, it is unlikely further references will be found. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm actually seeing a lot of coverage in 1956 on newspapers.com, but it's mostly AP wire stories (or modified AP wire stories). A bunch of newspapers reporting that he refused to testify in front of congress, pleading a bunch of amendments, is clear WP:BIO1E. WP:SUSTAINED notes that If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. The lack of any meaningful follow-up in the 66 years since his testimony from anyone other than his cousin shows that reliable sources only cover him in the context of a single event. Since he remained low-profile throughout his life, I see no compelling reason to consider him notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:20, 7 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 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Plato-Shinar[edit]

Ruth Plato-Shinar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Advertising/promotional piece about a subject with dubious notability. Was written by a professional PR manager, Noam Furer. FASTILY 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Law, and Israel. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost half the article is a list of articles she's written. Delete, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added her 2016 book,^[1] and a review^[2] and mention^[3] of the book. Her other book was published in Hebrew, so there might be more information available to someone who can read Hebrew. The page itself would need major pruning as so much of it is uncited. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If she were being cited in more works, or by the media, or had more references to her works elsewhere, then perhaps she'd creep into the range of notability, but I don't see much of any of that in searching around. Not quite above the bar. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Examing the references in the article, above, sources elsewhere per WP:NEXIST, and eyeballing Google Scholar, Plato-Shinar seems to fail WP:PROF and the WP:GNG at present. If someone has proof to the opposite, they are welcome to tag me. gidonb (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 7 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!} 21:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saka Kana Aa Saka[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced since creation in 2007; did it even ever air on ZBC? I couldn't find anything on the ZBC website or archive related to this program. This is a possibly a hoax. Eyesnore 20:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eyesnore 20:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Every source I could find about this alleged show from a Google search seemed to be copied, likely by bots, from this article. This combined with the lack of sources from ZBC's website or archives means this is either extremely obscure and fails WP:GNG or is a hoax. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not quite convinced that this is a hoax – for one thing, it was created by a seemingly good-faith contributor with no apparent history of fabrications – but ultimately that doesn't matter: as best I can tell, this show is isn't even verifiable, much less notable, and deletion is appropriate unless some significant coverage can be found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:26, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Netherzone (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Peery[edit]

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

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

A day ago, I redirected this page. Apparently someone mentioned something about WP:BEFORE, so this is why I'm doing this AFD. Back on point, this person is not notable. He has only participated in 2 games, and plus the North Hills dentist citation isn't even related. Cranloa12n (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG with all the sources I added this morning. The wrestler and the denist are the same person, per his obit (ref #3), confirmed with his Olympedia bio. The latter also states he was a three-time NCAA champ, and won a gold medal at the 1951 Pan American Games too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  dentist* Cranloa12n (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, being an NCAA champ thrice would meet WP:NCOLLATH. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  don't think that's just a comment. Sounds like a keep arguement. Cranloa12n (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then Keep, meets NCOLLATH and GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Pan-Am gold medalist, Olympic athlete, National Wrestling Hall of Fame inductee. WP:GNG met, and notability clearly established. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Won the NCAA wrestling championship six straight years (1952-1957), inducted into HOF, and thus passes WP:NCOLLATH. See here. Also passes WP:GNG with abundant SIGCOV. See, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4]. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cranloa12n: Please consider withdrawing this one as it's not even close. Cbl62 (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no how would you even "withdraw" Cranloa12n (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just edit your nomination -- or specifically, add a comment immediately under your nom -- to say "withdrawn", perhaps with a brief indication of why. It's often considered the classy thing to do when you realize a nomination is, in hindsight, in error or generally doomed, so as to avoid more people spending time on it unnecessarily. Or someone else prematurely closing it on your behalf, per the multiple 'speedy keeps'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - ridiculous nomination, and if the nominator does not even know how to withdraw he has no business being on AfD. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Meets multiple notability guidelines, seems to have been a complete failure to do any kind of WP:BEFORE. The fact that the nominator is proposing articles like this and Harry E. Luther for deletion while writing stuff like Project Nightfall themselves suggests they need to get a much better understanding of notability policies before any more involvement in deletion discussions. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I wish all AfDs were this easy and clear cut. Papaursa (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the nominatored AfDed some more we might end up with a few decent articles. Nigej (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Though not too many, hopefully -- it might work as Target Article of the Day by stealth, but if we just AfD'd all our stubs at once, get a little out of hand, a little quickly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You do realize that reply violates WP:Civility right? Cranloa12n (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - yeah, fair few references here to indicate this one meets notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep following the impressive expansion and sourcing effort applied in the last couple of days. Doesn't quite meet the NOLYMPIC threshold -- though as a Panamerican Games gold-medalist, is very much NSPORT-adjacent -- but now clearly meets GNG. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG. Cassiopeia talk 03:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep Clearly notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Cranloa12n (talk) 21:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unialphabet[edit]

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

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

The one source provided in the article does not demonstrate notability and is not independent, which also raises questions about the verifiability of the article's current information. My searches did not reveal further source material, so the best course of action seems to be deleting the article. Toadspike (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my rationale in Delfin Carbonell Basset (AfD discussion) (q.v.) Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: In 2008 one Brianne Hughes believed this very article, obtained a copy of the book, and found that this article is false. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a true sign of the extent to which wild west conditions gave power to unscrupulous editors who were willing to advance false narratives that a scandal like this involving downright falsehoods is still not cleared up 14 years after it was first made mention of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concepts cannot be adequate sourced to a work that is the one expression of them, we would need sources that discuss the purposes and uses of this concept that are secondary, the one source here is primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Simpson (Poets' Club founder)[edit]

Henry Simpson (Poets' Club founder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One line, 17-year-old article lacking inline citations. Two obscure sources listed a separate references. Article subject fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to the efforts of Piecesofuk, this is no longer the one-sentence article I found it to be when nominated, but a multiple-sourced, small biography worthy of Wikipedia. Request close as keep. Thanks, Piecesofuk. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability has not been demonstrated. Perhaps offline sources could provide more information, but until then this should not be kept around. Toadspike (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• On ISBN 9780198112341 page 458 this person is literally a 1-sentence footnote in history. Sadly, that's as much as I can find in any source. No-one has documented in depth the life and works of Scottish banker Henry Roberts, founder and sometime president of the Poets Club, and friend of Charles G. D. Roberts. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think he passes notability. There's a fair few mentions in the British Newspaper Archive. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and awarded an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters, he was also Honorary Treasurer... Aberdeen Press and Journal - Saturday 10 May 1947 He also didn't die in 1939 as the previous article shows Piecesofuk (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Article about the Poet's Club and Henry Simpson in the Graphic - Saturday 20 November 1909 Review of one of his books of poetry in the Aberdeen Press and Journal - Monday 17 January 1910 (the book is available on archive.org https://archive.org/details/faryflute00simpiala/mode/2up) Piecesofuk (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject was a fellow and honorary treasurer of the Royal Society of Literature, and he wrote three books of poetry, which were all reviewed, plus the award of an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters. Notability is also clearly shown in newspaper archives. Clearly passes guidelines for WP:GNG and easily meets WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY by Piecesofuk.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Barba[edit]

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

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

Alleged to be db-spam, however there is enough coverage in independent sources that I feel the article would be better served by AFD as opposed to CSD. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, California, and Minnesota. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The claim to notability (oldest tattoo shop, various awards) as well as the sources presented clearly demonstrate notability. The article does not seem overly promotional, unless listing accolades is unacceptable. If some editors disagree, the best course of action would be to rewrite or reword the article, rather than delete it altogether. Toadspike (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject of this article is clearly notable and meets WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent, verifiable reliable sources such as Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, Orange County Weekly, Long Beach Post, and others. That her work has been featured in four museum exhibitions, and is included in books on contemporary tattoo art is additional evidence that she is notable. If the article still contains advertorial/promotional tone or language, that can be cleaned up. The article should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is notable and clearly satisfies WP:GNG; totally agree with Netherzone. — Hebrides (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is clearly notable. Numerous write ups in independent and nationally recognized reliable sources, owner of oldest tattoo shop. Article meets WP:GNG guidelines. Agree with Netherzone and Hebrides. 2600:1700:481E:2E0:D5C8:554D:715F:9928 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Subject is notable for reasons stated above and meets WP:GNG guidelines. Miosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 7 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 00:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teach Away[edit]

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

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

This article has been around for years but each iteration of it seems to be primarily promotional. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the company. Google search brings up fewer than 100 results. ... discospinster _talk 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Europe, and Latin America. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability, especially with the higher requirements of WP:NCORP. Toadspike (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:NORG, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. - Hatchens (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM. No independent coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easy to find independent coverage. There's a 3-page feature article in Canadian Business. There's also this [Globe & Mail] article that has come coverage. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References fail WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Both the "Canadian Business" reference above and the "Globe and Mail" reference relies entirely and solely on information provided by the company and fails WP:ORGIND as it does not contain any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail and Canadian Business are (were) major national outlets. The Globe is the Newspaper of record. WP:GNG is met - to suggest that they've thrown out their fact-checking is improbable. Nfitz (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the WP:SIRS section of the GNG which explicitly refers to NCORP and the stricter approach to references used to establish notability of companies/organizations - so saying GNG is met isn't the complete story, you need to consider NCORP also. Also, nobody suggested that those publications threw out their fact checking - but there's a difference between a publication faithfully reproducing "what was said" and reporting "what was said" accurately (a form of fact checking) and a publication that *analyses" what was said and *double checks* the content of what was said for accuracy. In the absence of any evidence of the latter, therefore and according to WP:ORGIND (which requires fact checking that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject") it does not meet the criteria for establishing notability (although, of course, it may still be used within the article to support a fact or other information). HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 7 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. Sandstein 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Pierce[edit]

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

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

There was a guy named Pierce who played four games at guard during the 1920 Chicago Tigers season. Sources disagree as to who this Pierce was.

• Dick Pierce - According to Pro-Football-Reference.com, the Tigers' guard was "Dick", born 1896 and died 1966 in Detroit.

• Floyd Pierce - According to Pro Football Archives, the Tigers' guard was "Floyd", born in 1893 in Ypsilanti, Michigan, died in 1954 in Los Angeles County.

I created the article 12 years ago based on Pro-Football-Reference.com's assertion that it was "Dick." That assertion has now been called into doubt, and so we cannot verify whether or not WP:NGRIDIRON actually applies. Further, and after 12 years, my searches have failed to turn up WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy WP:GNG. Accordingly, it's time for this one to go. At least until the mystery is solved, an entry at List of National Football League players with unidentified given names would be the better place for this.

As there has been previous discussion of this, I am pinging the participants in that discussion. @BeanieFan11: @Natg 19: @109.255.211.6: Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Michigan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Given the commonness of the name Richard/Dick Pierce, I don't think a redirect is a good idea. Frankly Dick Pierce should probably redirect to the Richard Pierce disambiguation page. Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have no actual cases of significant coverage. I think this is a clear indication of why we need to stop creating articles based only on sports databases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Pro-Football-Reference is a very reliable source, but the questions about this particular entry are too significant to ignore. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: You literally said earlier this month "it makes sense to consider anyone who played in maybe 3 games in the NFL to be default notable," yet now you're saying to delete an article on a person who played more than that amount of games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was conditioned on a maybe. Beyond that, it may have been spoken too fast, as has much of the notability guidelines. Anyway, default notability is a consideration that when challenged needs to be supported by actual sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, these AFDs on NSPORT-passing people are saddening and make me feel like quitting WP. Pierce (it appears to be Dick Pierce from what I've seen) played four games in the National Football League, the highest level of the sport there ever was, and thus meets WP:NGRIDIRON, which states: players and head coaches are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: ... National Football League And I read in NSPORT in bold: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That's an or. And if that's "not a valid reason," then consider me !voting on IAR grounds, as I think deleting NFL player articles do not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie -- This case is really sui generis. And this AfD is not an attack on NGRIDIRON. Rather, and IMO, this is a really odd case in which we really don't have a sufficient basis here for even demonstrating that NGRIDIRON applies. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From what I understand, Cbl62 is not questioning NGRIDIRON. However, if we don't have any idea of who this player is, and especially if we can't find any RS about him, then that is grounds for deletion. At the very least, information about this player needs to be verifiable, and it seems like it is not at this point. Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, it possible that there just happened to be 2 players with the same last name that played for the Chicago Tigers in 1920? I guess it would be an odd coincidence if they both happened to only play 4 games. Natg 19 (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For there to have been two men with the same last name, both playing exactly four games, both at the same position and for the same team in the same year strikes me as highly, highly improbable. Rather, it appears that there was a single "Pierce" who played the four games at guard, and we just don't know if it was Dick or Floyd. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cbl62. If we cannot verify who the subject of the article actually is and do so with reliable sourcing then there should not be an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If someone has a Newspapers.com subscription, an old Coffin Corner article suggests there might be a limited accounting of 1920 Chicago Tigers players in the Rock Island Argus from Dec. 2, 1920, by Bruce Copeland. It's possible that could clear up his name (but unlikely to provide SIGCOV). JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, that's a reference to the all-pro team announced by the Argus on 12/2/20. Pierce was not among those selected. See here for the actual clipping. Cbl62 (talk) 13:39, 7 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. Sandstein 18:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamoupti Mudly[edit]

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

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

Does not have enough roles to prove notablility. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References in the article contain non trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and a quick search reveals many more, so WP:GNG is met and the article does not violate WP:ISNOT. The number of roles is not a requirement to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep - the two major roles mentioned seem to be pretty established shows, with several hundred episodes each, which to me suggests notability. I suspect someone who knows the Bengali television industry better would be able to clarify this but right now I think there's enough for a keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:46, 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 speedy deletion (WP:G4). (non-admin closure) Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 04:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annwesha Hazra[edit]

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

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

She has not got much notable roles so failing WP:NACTOR. AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Fashion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delfin Carbonell Basset[edit]

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

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

BLP without any actual working references. There is a bibliography of his works. Rathfelder (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no actual identified sources about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there are no sources. Toadspike (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The two account names used by the article creator suggest that the "source" here was a direct family relationship to the article subject. The article creator wrote xyr own autobiography in another Wikipedia article, now "sourced" to the creator's autobiography elsewhere. Neither that, nor this article, nor Unialphabet (AfD discussion) have any independent sources to use that I can find. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seilern Investment Management[edit]

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

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

Peacocky promo piece on a non-notable company. The sources cited are the company's own website, a couple of interviews of the founder, and one article (FondsProfessionell.at) which looks like it might contribute towards notability, but isn't alone enough to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media, company directories, standard business reporting / press release regurgitations, and again some interviews of the founder. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - refers to a "well-known" fund that gets less than 50 Google hits when searched. The company itself doesn't do much better. There are some media mentions, but only a couple (some paywalled). I don't think there's enough for a keep here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Assets under management > 2 billion. it has Relevance criteria in reference to over two million securities transactions"; The company beates its bechmarks in every fund category which shows its relevance. Mor than 90 percent of companies are not beating its benchmarks...Lucky-se7en (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The amount of AUM or performance against benchmarks are not notability criteria. If you can find sources to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT to support your article, please feel free to add them. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lacking notability based on current citations. Gusfriend (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article describing the proposition of an investment management firm, without indication of encyclopaedic notability. Some references are about the firm's founder and his book, others are announcement-based. Clearly a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the depth of coverage about the firm itself needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 7 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 13:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile E Scooter[edit]

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

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

Non notable organization that fails WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits predominantly to user generated sources such as this I note also that this is a subtle ADMASQ to promote the owner of the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough sources, Internet search doesn't provide any further material. Toadspike (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Does not meet NORG requirements. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV in reliable anx independent sources.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: in agreement with Celestina007. - Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or Directory service. Topic company fails WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:10, 7 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 merge to List of mathematical constants. There is consensus that this should not exist as a standalone but that some of the content would fit at the aforementioned link Star Mississippi 01:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical constants by continued fraction representation[edit]

Mathematical constants by continued fraction representation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced, indiscriminate table, with context supported only by links obscured with LaTeX math markup, e.g. ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{M(1,{\sqrt {2)))))}$ (Gauss's constant). A user removed all the continued fractions at List of mathematical constants in 2019 because it was causing excessive clutter. Can't find similar tables online, but not 100% confident that it fails WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid list article. As it says at the bottom Although some of the symbols in the leftmost column are displayed in black due to math markup peculiarities, all are clickable and link to the respective constant's page. They do link to other pages. This article was created in 2002. This seems quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No one in nearly 20 years has bothered to put the names of these constants into the page? That's the most impressive example of insular mathematics fandom that I have seen all weekend. I'm concerned that there are no discernible criteria for inclusion or exclusion here. I wouldn't object in principle to a list of constants whose continued fraction representations have themselves been noteworthy. For example, there is no algebraic or analytic expression for the Feigenbaum constants, so their continued fractions will just be translations of the known decimal approximations. I'd like to see this list saved (I'm always happier when a page can be Heymanned instead of deleted), but it's definitely got problems, and I can see the case for letting it go. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would the names be better than just the Symbols that represent them? If you don't recognize one are you going to recognize the other? Dream Focus 03:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Very much so. The letter ${\displaystyle C}$ by itself has no unique meaning in mathematics, for example. The table itself demonstrates the necessity of names by giving two different meanings of ${\displaystyle C_{2))$ (the Hardy–Littlewood twin prime constant and the base-2 Champernowne constant). It gives meanings for ${\displaystyle B_{2))$ and ${\displaystyle B_{4))$ based on Brun's theorem, but those could also be the second and fourth Bernoulli numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright. I added a names column and half of the names done thus far. Dream Focus 04:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I haven't been able to find a tabulation of constants sorted by continued-fraction representation in the literature. If one exists, it's pretty darn obscure, and thus not great evidence that we need to devote a whole page to the topic. It just doesn't seem to be anybody's priority, or the way that anybody has thought about the topic (as far as thoughts that survive peer review are concerned). The list assembles things that the academic literature has not. It doesn't advance a new conclusion; it's just an indiscriminate collection. It includes the typical cruft that accumulates in articles on the more recreational side of mathematics, like a constant that has had maybe three papers ever written about it, or an expression plucked out of a MathWorld page on things that can be defined using continued fractions and then granted the name "Continued Fraction Constant". (MathWorld has gathered a lot of fluff over the years.) And there isn't an example to follow for how to build a reasonable list of this kind. I wrote above that I wouldn't object in principle to a list of constants whose continued fraction representations have themselves been noteworthy. Here we have the gulf between principle and practice. Having read more and thought more, I don't think this provides value beyond the examples already given in the main continued fraction article. XOR'easter (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from chapter 10 of Annie Cuyt's book, do you mean? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Handbook of Continued Fractions for Special Functions? It's not really a sorted tabulation, though, is it? It's much more like how the continued fraction article presents the examples included there. That page already has ${\displaystyle e}$, ${\displaystyle \pi }$, the square and cube roots of 2, the golden ratio, the Euler–Mascheroni constant, and Khinchin's constant. Trim this page down to what that chapter can justify, and it's redundant with the main article. I tend to think that if we can't explain in prose the significance of expanding a particular constant as a continued fraction, we shouldn't bother with it. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not a replacement for the CRC handbook of old. XOR'easter (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic lacks sources supporting that a fractional representation of these numbers is notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of mathematical constants Atavoidturk (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of mathematical constants as the continued fractions would work nicely in the tables on that page. Gusfriend (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards Merge with List of mathematical constants. It's not end-of-the-world bad that one or two entries are unsourced - the decimal expansions of these numbers are available in many places around the Internet, so it might be okay to permit a continued fraction expansion sans source per WP:CALC (although this is kinda pushing it - the simplest way I can think of to calculate a continued fraction expansion would be to write a ~10-line Python program, which is far beyond the current policy of "basic arithmetic"), although citing nothing would be borderline WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.

  More importantly: Are there any reliable sources that discuss - or even mention - the continued fraction expansions of these numbers? (I looked up both the Cuyt et al. and Borwein et al. on Google Books and found nothing, though I’d like someone who actually has a physical copy of at least one of these two books to verify, and though I was also able to find a few of these sequences on OEIS.) Just because every real number has a continued fraction expansion doesn't mean that every interesting real number has an interesting continued fraction expansion - and I, for one, find these continued fraction expansions to be positively boring. As an inclusionist(-ish), I tend to be reluctant to get an article deleted, but also merging this with Continued fraction might feel a bit WP:UNDUE. Duckmather (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cuyt chapter 10 not only has the regular continued fraction representations, but even has citations of sources for them in its turn. Chapter 10 has, in order, π, Euler's number, integer powers and roots of π and e, ln(2), sqrt(2), the cube root of 2, Euler's γ, the Golden Ratio, the rabbit constant, Apéry's constant, Catalan's constant, Gompertz' constant, and Khinchin's constant. The regular continued fraction for Apéry's constant is sourced to "[AZ97]", for example, which is arXiv:math/9804121v1. Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is against keeping, but are the "delete" people OK with the proposed merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03, Dream Focus, XOR'easter, and MrsSnoozyTurtle: your view about the merger proposed above? Sandstein 13:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A merge would have to be selective. There are 35 entries in this table that aren't entirely trivial; the only source offered that might give a criterion for inclusion has about half that many (and that list only partially overlaps with this one). XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello Sandstein. Thank you for proposing an WP:ATD. I agree with the approach of XOR'easter for the merger. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds reasonable, since many sources about specific constants list their continued fractions, including sources about specific continued fractions. Continued fraction expansions probably pass WP:ROUTINE as well, since they are straghtforward to calculate if enough decimal places are known. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only source offered" is a bit weak. I think that no-one has really looked to see what sources there are, to see what criteria for inclusion are supported. After all, it's not hard to turn up Stephen R. Finch's Mathematical Constants (CUP 2003) which has a chapter on well-known constants with their continued fractions. But I'm the first to even mention it. Haakon Waadeland has another book Continued Fractions (Springer 2008) with "mathematical constants" being the first section of Appendix A. If conclusions were based upon actual research, they would be a lot safer. We shouldn't be going by what sources are offered but by what sources we can find. After all, the first source offered for Kinnoull was a bowling club WWW site (c.f. Special:Permalink/207128450). Uncle G (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did look for sources and found very little. And what I did find suggests to me that a table is the wrong way to present this information. For example, Finch (p. 46) gives three different expansions for ${\displaystyle \zeta (3)}$. Lorentzen and Waadeland (p. 267) give five different expansions for ${\displaystyle e}$. The right way to reflect the available sources could be to incorporate that information as prose discussions (maybe in continued fraction, maybe elsewhere), but we'd be talking about writing new content, not a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful and informative list. Article went from being unreferenced to having references and more complete information. Not the article is not what it was when nomiinated for deletion. Can be improved, but there is no valid reason proffered to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 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 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woodley[edit]

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

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

This page was deleted in 2017 but then recreated by a colleague of Woodley in 2019 without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action. Aside from the WP:PROF concerns that we can address, I notice that many to most of the sources used for this WP:BLP are not discussing the biography of the subject per se but instead are essentially either a retelling of his published work and public appearances or deep dive into WP:FRINGE areas to which this fellow seems particularly attracted for better or worse (see WP:FRINGEBLP for considerations in that regard). It is absolutely the case that he has been mentioned in the context of lately salacious controversies that dominate, shall I say, "intellectually dark" corners of the internet, but mere mention is typically not enough on which to base a biography. As an academic, his work is not particularly highly cited, as a public intellectual his reach is niche and WP:FRINGE (note that I was first alerted to the existence of this biography through a notice on WP:FTN about his recent forays into claims that look a lot like championing parapsychology, though sourcing is weak), and besides that I see little in the way as to attestations of notability.

Should some of this material be included elsewhere? It's possible. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN over his participation in the London Conference on Intelligence, but I think his participation, if at all noteworthy, is better handled at that page rather than on a biography. His onetime enthusiasm for cryptozoology might be worth a brief mention in a page like Gloucester sea serpent or something like that, and the way in which he has positioned himself in race and intelligence discussions may also lead to as much as a paragraph in some article on Flynn effect where it is clear that some mainstream news kinda attached themselves, press-release-style, to his claim that human beings are losing their intelligence (but see WP:SENSATION). All in all, there is essentially no attestation to notability here that I can find for this person as a subject of a biography. That does not mean all mention of Woodley needs to be excised from Wikipedia, but when asking the question of whether a standalone article deserves to exist, I think we have to consider that when the sourcing is this precarious and the content this prone to problems, it is better to be conservative and remove the article than it is to have one sticking out like the sore thumb this one is. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the issues which jps has laid out, I'll just add that two of the secondary sources used in the article (which may give the impression of conferring notability) are authored by Woodley's collaborators: 1) the entry in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science [5] was written by Matthew Sarraf (who has collaborated with Woodley on numerous papers, see e.g. [6], [7], [8]) and Aurelio José Figueredo (see e.g. [9], [10], [11]); and 2) the article "Cryptozoology at the Zoological Society of London" by Darren Naish [12] (who collaborated with Woodley here: [13]). Because neither of these sources is independent of the subject, it doesn't seem that either should count toward WP:GNG. Generalrelative (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Isn't the point of NPROF is to keep these academics' articles in order to summarise their contributions to academic fields rather than discuss their life outside that because they would otherwise flunk the GNG? You mention mainstream news often reporting on sensationalism, but what if RS like New Scientist, Psychology Today, and Smithsonian Magazine are also discussing his work?[14] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Scientist is a sensationalist rag, the item on the Smithsonian Magazine website is too brief to be WP:SIGCOV, and the item in Psychology Today is a passing mention that does not find it particularly credible. (Personally, I am rather sceptical of this theory as it rests on many questionable assumptions and some rather shaky evidence. In this article I don’t intend to go into too much detail... [15]) Overall, I'm not impressed with the quantity or depth of the news reporting available. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Scientific American also a sensationalist rag like WP:NEWSCIENTIST? [16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a blog. jps (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a WP:NEWSBLOG? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean WP:BLOG especially with reference to its final exhortation: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." jps (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-published. The author did not publish it, since the publisher, Scientific American, still had to accept it. That should be obvious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the WP:BLOG policy is clear. This counts as a blog according to it. Sorry. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN and ask for other opinions, but I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be. jps (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from plain language what "self-published" means and that Scientific American article is not it. I can let others in this AfD figure that out for themselves. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Tetrapod Zoology" or "Tet Zoo" is the personal blog of Darren Naish, which was hosted by the SciAm blog collective until he departed in 2018 [17]. Without more information about how much editorial control SciAm exerted over their bloggers at the time, it's actually hard to say whether Tet Zoo counts as WP:SPS or not. (The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American, says a disclaimer in tiny font.) One could well argue that, to be prudent, it is not suitable for sourcing a contentious claim in a BLP. And since it's Naish blogging about something he did with Woodley, it's a WP:PRIMARY source, meaning that we could only use it with extreme care, and that it doesn't contribute to notability. (I wouldn't magically become wiki-notable if my coauthors blogged about me.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that explanation makes more sense because it seemed like he was the equivalent to a columnist at a newspaper at face value. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: is this because of its new ownership? Does the RSNP statement "There is consensus that New Scientist magazine is generally reliable for science coverage. Use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims." need revision? Because you seem to be basing your statement on two events that happened over a decade ago. I'm asking this as a general question not related to this AfD. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: There were many incidents other than those two from that time period [18], none of which are easily forgiven, and the most recent discussion linked at RSP indicates that they're just sleazy: They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy, etc. N. David Mermin took the trouble to make an arXiv post about how New Scientist wouldn't quote him accurately about his own work [19]. The new ownership is just icing on the cake, and an indication that nothing's going to improve. XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need a new RSN discussion, right? Because I certainly have been relying on RSNP and knee none of this. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:NPROF asks us to consider the academic noteworthiness of a person which may diverge from typical biographical considerations. But in this regard, the situation is even more dire. The guy is not a particularly well-known academic according to the usual measures. jps (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Greatly disagree that this article "sticks out like a sore thumb". It's very much in line with other academic articles. The references are very mainstream and reliable. You mention it was created "without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action" but don't explain.Nweil (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When articles are recreated after being deleted, there is normally a discussion prior to "undeletion". See WP:DRV. jps (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird that you think the article is "very much in line" with other academic articles given that by my reading most of the content relates to WP:FRINGE theories. That's not particularly common. jps (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not an undeletion request. It was created anew. As far I can tell, there was no end-around the policy as you imply. There are multiple print references to Woodley's work. His peers cite him with no caveat. This is fundamentally opposed to your claim of "fringe". Nweil (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there is nothing that prevents longtime editors who are grandfathered into article creation from re-creating deleted material. Yes, this has historically been something that has been called out as problematic at AfDs as an end-run around WP:DRV. I'm not saying sanction the article creator (though WP:COI could be a consideration here). I'm merely saying that the article was once deleted and it probably deserves to stay deleted. Should I ask for WP:SALT? Well, let's just see what happens in this discussion. The claim that "his peers cite him with no caveat" is not surprising when you are publishing in a backwater or walled garden. This is particularly common in WP:FRINGE areas such as race and intelligence or cryptozoology, to be honest. jps (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable fringe academic that was originally [20] deleted but re-created by (Personal attack removed) B. Pesta (Redacted). Not enough reliable sources give details about Woodley's life. Most of the sources on the article are not in depth and only passing mention i.e. sources 9-15 are excessive and some do not even mention Woodley (for example, [21] or mention him once only [22], so these sources are being used inappropriately. (Personal attack removed). It's a desperate attempt to create a whitewashed biography for Google ranking. Also the claim that Woodley has abandoned cryptozoology is not true, he is still researching the topic as of 2022 and has also co-written several crazy paranormal papers which are not notable. I understand there are notable fringe people, but this guy is not one of them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Personal attack removed) Nweil (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nweil, your use of the word "million" might be excused as hyperbole, but this editor's last block for misconduct was about six years ago, and there is no record of sockpuppetry. False accusations against other editors are personal attacks. Consider yourself warned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this comment misplaced, because I can't figure out how this is a response to anything Psychologist Guy wrote. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and I've adjusted the indentation to match better (outdented the first "reply"). Primefac (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually no. I see how Primefac might have thought this but Nweil made it clear at ANI [23] that they really were responding to Psychologist Guy, accusing him of "outing" despite the fact that B. Pesta's identity was self-declared. I've reformatted again to (hopefully) resolve the confusion. Generalrelative (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This non-mainstream scholar passes WP:Prof#C1 on Google scholar|Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 28 publications indexed by Google Scholar cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • This looks like Googlehacking to me which has been an increasingly common game played by fringe academics. Google Scholar does a pretty poor job of distinguishing between self-citations, churn, and pocket journal citations, for example. It's also clear that this list is one that is being monitored by the subject which Google Scholar now allows you to do, making it less unbiased for our purposes. jps (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "monitored by the subject"? Anybody can monitor any GS profile: they cannot alter it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, you can alter it now by claiming the profile and linking to your papers. It's game-able in a way it wasn't in the past (Note that I am not saying that this person has done the specific charge listed in this blogpost, but I just link here to show that it is possible to add things to one's profile]. jps (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has the subject added citations to other authors with the same name? If so please specify them. That is the only way a GS profile can be gamed. (Actually, the way the system works is that citations cannot be added; they can only fail to be subtracted from the profile).Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

That is not the only way a GS profile can be gamed. You can explicitly add sources if they aren't identified in the default Google Scholar search. Some may call that "fair play", but it is a unique feature that Google Scholar has that no other index has (unless you think ResearchGate functions as an index of sorts). jps (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK But please show where he has done this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I did not say he has done this. I noted that he has claimed his profile. In response, you claimed he could not alter it, and I said that, contrariwise, it is possible to alter it. As far as I know, Google doesn't make public what things a profile user adds to their Google scholar profile. jps (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you still claim that the subject Googlehacked his citation record it would be useful to have evidence. A rather different case of citation shenanigans is here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Googlehacking is something that happens through a lot of means in fringe contexts, as pointed out by XOR'easter in a more eloquent fashion below. jps (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a curious anomaly in Google Scholar: there will often be a slightly different different set of papers if you go to it through the user profile, or if you search on "MA Woodley" or 'M Woodley" (and remove those from other people with the same initial). I've come across occasions where this is significant, though it does not appear to be for this individual. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tend to discount straight-up citation counting as meaningful for WP:PROF#C1 in fringe fields, due to the commonality of walled gardens, citations from dubious journals, random web documents that Google Scholar happened to scrape, etc. Other than that, there just isn't much to go on. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Request from user I have received an email from the subject of the article that he "would prefer that it be deleted". He made a similar request at the first AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case I change my vote to Delete as it is a borderline case per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete There are insufficient sources to create an informative and neutral article. And no, he fails WP:PROF. WP:PROF incidentally is a guideline, not a policy. The assumption is that anyone who meets the criteria must be notable. Hence, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." However, it has not been shown that he meet the criteria. Note also that the guideline says that published works alone do not make someone notable, "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." But again, this subject does not meet the criteria. Finally, the debates about the content are what one expect when someone lacks notability and we are relying on fragments on information about them to sew together an article. TFD (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went though the articles (that weren't paywalled for me) that should be the basis of his notability and they were mainly just quick mentions of his work. Konnikova mentions Woodley in the Smithsonian article probably the most, but it is only in one paragraph and only about his work. Woodley whom I had not heard of before seems to have many mentions of his work in various RS but no real content that would put him over the line for him to have his own stand alone article. I would be against salting as he still seems active and possibly in the future he might pass notability. Just not now. Sgerbic (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per DGG and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems pretty straightforward, an edge case where the subject himself calls for deletion as well. ValarianB (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, borderline notability, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE takes precedence over other concerns. --Jayron32 16:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - When I see arguments like they are not notable (not a public figure) to justify exclusion of criticism which is required by policy to avoid GEVAL and the promotion of fringe beliefs, or that sources are lacking that criticize them, it's generally an indication that WP:BLPN is not met. As for BLPREQUESTDELETE, it would also not matter if BLPN was really met: the article would stay and be properly sourced. —PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfortunately. While I personally think this individual passes the threshold of notability, this clearly is a borderline case, so I think the right thing to do in this situation is to respect the article subject's wishes for it to be deleted. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be a list of locations in Ukraine labeled by who currently controls them in the ongoing invasion. This fails WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a live news ticker. During active hostilities, any information about the status of these locations will be contradictory, unreliable and likely to change by the day. After the conflict, any changes in territorial control will be better described in a prose article and by way of a map. Besides, many entries are unsourced (WP:V), and what sources are cited are often several days old. Sandstein 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is being used to support Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per below. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as we have never been at war with Eurasia, only ever with Eastasia. This is effectively just a list of towns, etc, in Ukraine, and as such duplicate material. SN54129 14:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as right now, it been covered at the site's current events page for few days straight, as mean it's clearly real, as well any pages related to both the Russo-Ukrainian War and its invasion, being taken place. Chad The Goatman (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR. This article houses the sources for Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. The template helps us in making map pictures for war articles following the procedure depicted in the figure below. So deleting this article will just disrupt the making of war maps. Tradedia^talk 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong keep: While initially neutral, I changed my mind after seeing the nominator also intends to delete the module as well. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This article is required to support Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map (which is in turn used to draw summary maps used in articles), just as with Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. @Sandstein: are you suggesting we delete the map, or that the map be unreferenced? What is your solution here? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tartan357, yes, as explained below, the map has the same problems as this list and should also be deleted. Sandstein 10:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Per reasons from Tartan357 and Tradedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above. Showing the status of battle and whatnot. Redoct87 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The case that this article is required to source the war map which has obvious benefit to readers, is quite convincing. Davey2116 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This page is obviously used to supplement the war map and satisfy inline citation guidelines. I'd say WP:SNOW might be in order here. Firestar464 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IAR, but we should probably formalize the war-map system a bit with some tracking categories and essays. We kinda have cats for templates and essays, but we don't have a category for source-list articles like this. --Artoria2e5 🌉 06:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom and NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not for the day-to-day flow of a war. Wasn't done for the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan or any other recent conflict, and there's no reason to start here. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you suggest be done about the map? If you're advocating eliminating all maps related to the invasion while it's ongoing, that's fine, but I want to be sure what we're talking about is clear. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The map has the same problems as the list: it is a current news ticker in a graphical format, which Wikipedia is not for (WP:NOT). The list and its history show that they are not remotely updated and sourced well enough to be a reliable representation of the situation on the ground, which means that we are doing a disservice to our readers by providing them with unverifiable and/or outdated information. A map like this is something that news websites do much better than we can hope to do. Sandstein 10:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still new, we should give editors a chance to improve it. The Syria map became a gold standard of sorts on the internet; maps by news outlets are only approximations, whereas ours are based entirely on the control of individual cities. Take a look at Wikipedia:Top 10 reasons why copying from maps is strictly prohibited on the Wikipedia Syria war map. I have great respect for Tradedia and the other Wikipedians who spent a great deal of time creating a well-oiled system for detailed, verifiable war maps. In any case, it doesn't make sense to delete the references page before the map itself has even been nominated for deletion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, there IS a map for the war in Afghanistan. I'd recommend you all to read Elli's comment below. Firestar464 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We actually have modules for both the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also have some other modules on the ongoing wars in Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Syria, Myanmar, Mali, Kivu, Mozambique, Yemen, and many others. For a more local alternative see the detailed map for the War in the Donbass. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, of course the information in the list will quickly change and may not be fully reliable. However, one can say the same about any page about current events. As far as the list or the page is sourced, and the events are notable (as they certainly are), such list has every right to exist. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep this is a rehashing of the numerous discussions that have been had over the Syrian map. Yes, this is not exactly a usual article, but it clearly has a useful function for the encyclopedia, is not harmful in any way, and does comply with our policy on verifiability. WP:NOTNEWS, if you read it, does not say we cannot have something like this. It isn't original reporting (it's all sourced to other reports), just a news report (we're not making an article for every attack, and a war isn't meaningfully routine; this is an appropriate way to handle information that changes), who's who (obviously), or celebrity gossip. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely a good summary/overview of the current state. Can be revisited once this war is over. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Definitely a good tool for further edits on the Map Template and a good guide for the current situation of events. Essential encyclopedic value. Must be kept. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article support the map and is needed. Thingofme (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This article is vital for coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. WP:SNOW might apply said as said above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia's coverage of the Syrian Civil War works exactly the same way, I don't see why we should change it. It's a pretty neat system -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep WP:NOTNEWS does not say that pages cannot be updated as events occur. It says that wikipedia is not for original reporting or reporting on insignificent events. It is likely, to me, that this event will remain significent in the future. This page is reporting information from other sources in a useful way. No comparable page on the internet exists right now. Finally, while I understand that significance is subjective and not a criteria, this article plays a VITAL role that no other website is acomplishing. To be able to see the timeline of events and news links without information about celebrety tweets or repeated clutter like CNN and every other news source is doing is CRUCIAL for humankind. - SewerSocalist (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is used to support Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. Until there is consensus that either the Ukraine combat map or combat maps in general are inappropriate, this article should stay. If the nominator opposes Wikipedia having live combat maps, then this should be resolved with an RFC. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete soapbox. Beshogur (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Firestar464 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and certainly NOT a progress tracker of a war, disaster, election, game, etc. Additionally, the title is in bad English ("a town during a war", what the hell is this about?) — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It's certainly useful, and can be sourced. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is used to support the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per Elli. Phiarc (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: The article Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War has been moved to Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War on 10:02, 5 March 2022 UTC, per unanimous consensus at Talk:Cities and towns during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Requested move 26 February 2022. The rationale given were Current title is not specific enough and does not provide context for which cities and towns will be listed & ...is more precise than the current title. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Elli. An uncontested Ukrainian city does not need a citation to demonstrate that it belongs to Ukraine, as most reports simply won't write about untouched cities. The article plays a useful statistical and encyclopedic role, as Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map suggests. Pilaz (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a harmless list, providing some detail in English of an emerging and worrying situation. When we know the outcome of the war, there will probably be a case for purging the list of uncontested places, if there are any. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. When an article has to be updated day by day, even hour by hour, it's NEWS. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Encyclopedic information. WP:NOTPAPER. The disputable cases mostly seem to be sourced. This article supports Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, as in the case of several other recent armed conflicts for which en.Wikipedia has provided encyclopedic coverage, which have similar module-based relations to map files. Boud (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Certainly, this article has news value, in that it describes a rapid-changing situation, and that it is up to date or nearly so. However, that is independent of the question whether the article has encyclopedic value. Imagine if the situation settles, would the article still prove useful to readers looking for encyclopedic information? This is debatable, but I believe the answer would be yes. The argument that news value precludes encyclopedic value is not valid. Though perhaps if consensus decides this article does not belong in mainspace, I would like to see it merged with Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map over deleting it, since the article is used to provide reliable sources for information in the map, and also supports editing activity. --Kakurady (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: clear value per above, and it's not too difficult to cite reliable sources for the uncontested cities. Oeoi (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above per Elli.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:34, 7 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 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elbert Barr[edit]

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

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

Hasn't received any significant coverage, only mentioned in databases or in passing in results. Being allowed to play once because many actual pro players withdrew is not sufficient when the actual coverage is missing. Fram (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks coverage that rises to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Barr may technically pass WP:NTENNIS, but I agree that an SNG pass isn't enough to overcome a GNG failure in this context. Since my search for GNG-qualifying coverage didn't find anything significant (only the same sorts of database entries and trivial mentions that Fram found), he isn't notable at the moment. Given Barr's youth, it's certainly possible that he may receive significant coverage in the future; administrators should feel free to restore the article if that ends up happening. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:36, 7 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 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public School English Medium Bijbehara[edit]

Public School English Medium Bijbehara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 14 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!} 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. How many of these random obscure-as-heck schools are in India, anyway? In a big country of 1 billion individuals, probably a lot. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wholly not notable in any way, shape, or form. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:26, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuban Badyakar[edit]

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

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

Nothing more than a 1-time event, overnight sensation and citation bombing. Fails notability. Juggyevil (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. ManaliJain (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : there has been already added many citation feom reliable sources. Bloody Knight Rider (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per CSD#G11. Shinnosuke15, 12:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and is a WP:BLP1E and WP:CITEBOMB only. Fails WP:ENT norms 2402:3A80:69B:E4B9:98B0:E7D3:1368:C512 (talk) 10:06, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amaury Brigante[edit]

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

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

Lacks significant coverage or impact. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Radio, Spain, and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the sources cited are either unreliable or not significant, and my search finds no coverage that would satisfy the GNG or any relevant SNG. I'm not seeing any indication that the outside world has taken any real notice of this aspiring celebrity's career. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:13, 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. Without any sources, there is not verifiable content to merge. ✗plicit 01:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Misiones, Paraguay[edit]

List of high schools in Misiones, Paraguay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD so needs to go to AfD. As per reasoning at several other recent AfDs in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paraguay/archive, this also fails WP:LISTN (lack of coverage of these schools as a group) and has no navigational purpose. Also violates WP:NOT, in particular Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable schools. Aside from that, the article is mostly WP:OR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[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)} 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - is it worth bundling a lot of the articles in Category:Lists of high schools in Paraguay into one AfD? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the prior consensus that led to similar lists being deleted and the fact that this one clearly isn't notable. Also, doing a bundled list for the rest would probably be a good idea now that there is a clear consensus about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 - thanks. I've decided to bite the bullet and just do a bundled list at risk of WP:TRAINWRECK. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non notable unsourced list. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Misiones_Department#Education. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would only support merge if reliable sources could be found for the content per WP:V. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 4 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Bella Earl[edit]

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

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

Having a big fan following is irrelevant. Not a notable Youtuber, unable to find independent coverage. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, Women, and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added a source from The Times. There also seems to be plenty of global coverage of her and her channel in Google News, eg https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20170426/422062043655/english-with-lucy-negocio-clases-gratuitas-ingles-youtube.html, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/teacher-shares-guide-comparing-british-american-australian-slang/news-story/7b8bcbd9b6b942e225f8143509221ea4 and https://www.idntimes.com/hype/entertainment/muna-waroh/potret-lucy-bella-earl-youtuber-inggris-yang-selalu-tampil-menawan-c1c2 etc Piecesofuk (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment news.com.au has no byline, idntimes it is written by the contributor, [24] is kind of good one but again, I can't see any journalist commentary in it and the quotes of Lucy Bella Earl is the proof of non independent coverage.Juggyevil (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not have sourcing that actually rises to the level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There is even a scholarly in-depth analysis of some aspects of the content of the channel - most likely you were not aware of: English phonological assimilation applied in “English with Lucy” channel on youTube. There are reviews in respected sources: reread the article and follow the links provided. --Kggucwa (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - IMO sources such as The Times and BBC are of value and, let me say, there is a lot of global coverage, out of which @Juggyevil: may find such a recomendation 6 Best YouTube Channels to Learn Grammar in 2022 from these reviewers interesting. As far as bylines are concerned, consult this text by a senior editor at The Economist, please. --Kggucwa (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but none of the sources are helpful, in-depth or independent. Sage Journal is itself having byline and Wikipedia is not Sage Journal.Juggyevil (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Juggyevil: Do you mind removing this discussion from the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions? It is education and not entertainment that Lucy Bella Earl has been aiming at for six years. --Kggucwa (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Times, Business Insider and BBC articles are strong secondary sources, she's being used as a source by other media outlets from the looks of the NZ Herald piece and some other UK papers. Hard to define YouTube notability in regards to subscriber count, but 350k seems fairly strong. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - update - Today, the number of subscribers is well in excess of 350k. It is 7.62 million, actually. I agree: 7.62 million seems fairly strong, indeed, and the said Wikipedia article deserves a Keep. --Kggucwa (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of sources that discuss her directly and in-depth, which from what I can tell none of them do. In the meantime subscriber count doesn't really matter. For all we know she got them through a click farm or something. Even if she didn't, there's zero in the guidelines about the notability of YouTubers being based on subscriber count. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - erm... the Business Insider article is 800-plus words specifically about her, in-depth. The BBC article is also specifically about her, though shorter. The Times article is specifically about her, though paywalled. I'd strongly disagree with your first statement. Agreed that subscriber count can be manipulated, but it is certainly an indicator of notability, if not directly referred to in the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Fox: 800-plus words of an interview and some of those 800 words is her lamenting about the creative process in general and other YouTube creators. So no, it's not really "800 words specifically about her." Really most of it isn't about her, specifically or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Times, BBC, and Business Insider provide obvious in-depth coverage passing WP:GNG. Opposition appears to come from people who mistakenly believe that GNG-notability should be based on some evaluation of how important the occupation of the subject is rather than on the actual level of coverage of the subject herself in reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her work is the subject of at least one academic paper from an Indonesian University, which is obviously independent and in depth, she is featured in the BBC plus the Business Insider and The Times, I find it easy to say keep for this one, based on her meeting the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 01:35, 6 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 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Hill School[edit]

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

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

According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES the notability guidelines for schools were made stricter in 2017, and this school doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:55, 7 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!} 06:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crown & Carter[edit]

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

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

Only mentions I can find of this company is about the layout of a single suburb in Mumbai. References don't have significant mention of anything else other than this. If that is all that is to be said, then I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - purely promotional article, searches did not turn up enough to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 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!} 05:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

Spillover of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There has only been one spillover, and it already has an article: Millerovo air base attack. Attacks being launched from Belarus and Transnistria are not spillovers because there's been no fighting there (and we have Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). Protests are also not spillovers. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – title/topic scope appears to be largely WP:SYNTH. Jr8825 • Talk 07:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the current article state, and as of writing with the current status of the war, this is undeserving of a dedicated article as per WP:GNG in my opinion. Maxorazon (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL that there would be very much spillover. There have only been two relatively minor in scale incidents (an additional rocket attack occurred near Rostov-on-Don). If this changes substantially over the next 7 days, then consider a keep, but as of right now, this is a clear delete. Curbon7 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS and nothing to show this will be an encyclopaedic topic. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. This is not notable yet. Thingofme (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Basically agreeing with all what has been said above. In general it's better not to have titles like that, but instead describe each and every skirmish separately. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete NOTNEWS/TOOSOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 6 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 redirect to Postal codes in Russia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Russia[edit]

List of postal codes in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ([25], [26]). asilvering (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Postal codes in Russia: The page Postal codes in Russia describes how postal codes work in Russia. Gusfriend (talk) 05:06, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Darrow[edit]

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

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

This has been created, turned back into a redirect, and recreated too many times now. Let's have an actual discussion.

Arguments for deletion (or rather, restoring the redirect to Surface Pressure) are straightforward: Jessica Darrow does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Her only roles in productions notable enough to have Wikipedia articles look to be Encanto and Feast of the Seven Fishes (questionable whether that film is particularly notable or whether her role was significant). And I couldn't find enough significant coverage to meet GNG: there are mainly trivial mentions in articles about Encanto and gossip articles. The article as is cites only two useful sources ([27], [28]), and it looks to me like there aren't many more out there.

(See also Talk:Encanto#Can someone create a Wiki page for actress Jessica Darrow, where I made this argument before and seem to have been ignored.) Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aerin17 (t • c) 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes however only one notable role is enough to have an article. there are many articles on actors with only one role. two is good enough for article. keep the article and allow others to work on it to add sources. she's one of the biggest starts in the most popular disney movie of last year. other sources can be found. allow others to add to article. There are better sources out there. They just need to be found. I know there are definitely sources to be used. And many of them that are linked are legit entertainment sites. Lets see what others think. Also Out magazine source no 3 is legit source. It is very popular Lesbian magazine. Raja1011 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are better sources out there, please find them yourself and share. See WP:But there must be sources! (And also, yes, I literally mentioned the Out magazine source in my nomination and said that it isn't enough on its own.) Aerin17 (t • c) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cuba, Florida, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Billboard interview, few others that show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - restore redirect to song. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG, and while they do technically meet MUSICBIO (as was pointed out to me on my talk page), that still does not preclude them meeting GNG. And unfortunately interviews, being primary sources, do not count towards GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Billboard interview, numerous other websites that have covered and interviewed her, she has worked on acting roles as one of the main characters in Encanto (possibly the biggest Disney film of all time), GTA V, and Feast of the Seven Fishes, and has two charting songs on Billboard, one of which reached the top 10 in at least two countries. That alone should warrant an article, in my opinion, as it is not easy to do such a thing. The movie still has at least another few months of hype and circulation until it starts to wind down, so there ought to be more articles on Darrow regardless. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Beyond the Billboard interview, the Out article is significant coverage of the individual in an editorially managed secondary source. Those two are enough for GNG. A simple google search also shows me a Broadwayworld.com article specifically about her (for a theater role) and some minor Buzzfeed stuff that's not sufficient for GNG but adds evidence to existing notability. Ehh, and beyond that "Actor in a big role" is generally a pass, so the Nom's concern seems a bit more than necessary (although I respect attempts to prune bad articles). -Markeer 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, appears to demonstrate notability. If references are a concern a ((Sources exist)) tag can be added to the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as 2 through 5 are all in depth enough to meet aforementioned guidelines. Goes past WP:1EVENT, as she has both starred in Encanto and had chart success internationally—that's the foundations of notability, right there. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved though (indeed, as all articles could be); it's still a bare-bones stub in need of further expansion. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Echoing the statements above. The article more than meets the criteria for notablilty and with more edits over time will become more fluid. I also found some great legit sources that can be added including a billboard article: https://www.billboard.com/music/latin/jessica-darrow-surface-pressure-encanto-soundtrack-interview-1235025246 Raja1011 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing to add, the arguments above spell it out pretty well Nevermore27 (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are also so many other sources that can be added to make article better including a new buzzfeed article:https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenniferabidor/jessica-darrow-encanto-behind-the-scenes So there are plenty of legit sources to validate this article. Raja1011 (talk) 20:57, 6 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. Despite multiple relists, there has been little participation and no agreement about the relevance of the sources or the appropriate disposition of the article. RL0919 (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zebunisa Jilani[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTPROMO; there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources (excluding PR) and notability cannot be inherited by descent or marriage or trivial association with a Nobel awardee. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC, there appear to be a variety of sources over time that support her notability and could help expand the article, e.g. War calls back princess to a long-ago homeland (The National News, 2009), A princess returns to the Swat Valley (Globe and Mail, 2010), The girl who stood up to Taliban coming to Providence (The Providence Journal, 2016), The Target (Vanity Fair, 2013), The heroes of Swat (Daily Times, Op-Ed, 2018), Opening of high school for girls in remote Swat village lauded (Dawn, 2019), A Pennington group comes to the aid of women and children in Pakistan (Central Jersey, 2020), Local Rotary club aids village in Pakistan (Times Standard, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles in The Providence Journal (2016) as well as Vanity Fair (2013) are about Malala Yousafzai. The mentions about Jilani are trivial and it is ridiculous to claim that they contribute to the notability of our subject in any manner. (WP:BASIC notes, trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.)

  The article in The Times Standard (2020) is obviously a press-release and even then, a trivial mention.

  Central Jersey.com has an interesting form and I suspect the reliability of the media organization. No details about editorial policies or a list of staff can be located.

  That leaves us with The Globe and Mail (2010) and The National News (2009) which are not sufficient for passing GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From my view, The National News and The Globe and Mail both provide significant, in-depth coverage about her and her career, and provide substantial support for notability per WP:GNG. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, with the exception of trivial coverage, and I listed The Providence Journal first because it provides context for the Vanity Fair article, and includes biographical and career information for Jilani, in addition to her connection to Malala Yousafzai, so it does not appear to be trivial. When combined with the notice from Vanity Fair in its extensive profile of Yousafzai, which also includes Jilani's biographical and career information, this does not appear to be trivial, and therefore adds some support to her notability.

  I also share your concern about PR pieces, including because when I searched on Proquest, I found what appeared to be an article written by an advertising agency, and did not include it as a source here. However, the 2019 coverage in Dawn is bylined to a newspaper correspondent and notes progress since the founding of SRI and mentions Jilani's role as a co-founder and president, as well as some biographical information, so it does not appear trivial. I also included the 2018 Daily Times op-ed with commentary about her and SRI because the author is "the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, Washington, DC, and author of Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity".

  Central Jersey.com appears to be a local newspaper publishing group, and the 2020 article is bylined to a staff writer, so while the publication clearly solicits press releases, this standard way of obtaining news leads from the community does not appear sufficient to eliminate the article as a source. The Times Standard publishes guidelines about how it uses press releases and how they verify information and turn it into news coverage, so the ongoing coverage of Jilani, her work, and biographical information does not appear trivial or unreliable.

  From my view, the first two sources provide a solid foundation to support notability, and then the ongoing coverage helps provide additional support per WP:BASIC that can also help expand the article, which also needs editing to remove puffery. Beccaynr (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Beccanyr TrangaBellam clearly does not how to determine notability or is trying to remove articles on Pakistani notables. Neither Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb or Miangul Zebunisa aka Zebunisa Jilani is notable solely for being a Royal or Noble. Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb is an Islamabad High Court Justice and I don't see TrangaBellam proposing deleting Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel. Zebunisa Jilani is a foundation director whose former intern is Malala Yusafzai.RichardBond (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selective) >>>> Swat Relief Initiative. Djflem (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good alternative! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This in-depth source that includes biographical and career information also supports her WP:GNG notability: Wali-e-Swat’s granddaughter striving to serve underprivileged people of valley (The News International, 2011, archived April 14, 2014). Beccaynr (talk) 23:49, 6 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. A redirection has been proposed as an alternative, but would be problematic given that there's currently no mention in the target article. The redirect can be created if such a mention is added. Sandstein 08:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GM Card[edit]

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

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

This article was WP:BLARed in 2019 by User:Newslinger with the rationale Redirect to General Motors. Highly promotional with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and several citations to sponsored content. Article was primarily written by sockpuppet of undisclosed paid editor (WP:SOCKSTRIKE), and recently WP:RfDed here, where consensus was to revert the BLAR and send to AfD. It was also previously AfDed in 2008 where the topic was determined to be non-notable. There is no reliable significant coverage at all (I actually had to delete some "secondary" sources when restoring the article as they were on the MediaWiki spam backlist), and the article is nothing short of a concealed advertisement. eviolite (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is not a site for promotional material masquerading as an article.TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to General Motors. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Routine announcements such as the Adweek article do not count toward notability, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Credit card blogs that are driven by affiliate commissions, such as Creditcards.com and The Balance, are not reliable and not sufficiently independent of the article subject to establish notability.
  WP:PRODUCT states, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." The GM Card program is an extension of the General Motors brand, and a brief mention in the General Motors article would be appropriate. (GM Financial is not an appropriate redirect target, because it offers loans and leases, not credit cards.) — Newslinger talk 04:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe General Motors is the best redirect target because the GM Card portfolio has changed hands a few times (as I've noted in my other comments here), first with a company that was acquired by HSBC Finance, then with Capital One, and finally with Goldman Sachs. However, the portfolio has maintained its association with the General Motors brand the entire time. — Newslinger talk 16:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have retargeted GM Flex Card to this article (which is where it was targeted when created) as whether it is kept, deleted or retargeted they should share the same fate (notifying per Thryduulf in the RFD). A7V2 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging other participants at the RfD @Havradim, Mdewman6, and Tamzin: and previous AfD @Protonk, Russavia, RayAYang, and Arakunem:. A7V2 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
• Oppose redirection unless and until mention is added at General Motors, and I'm not sure I agree that such mention is justified. I think Delete per nom and TH1980. A7V2 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure if redirection to GM or Ally Financial (which used to be GMAC, their finance company) is best but one of those two is appropriate. Deletion is fine, but redirection gives some information (even if there isn't text at the target page) and serves as a sort of soft-salting for these kinds of topics. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The GM Card portfolio is now owned by Goldman Sachs, after they acquired it from Capital One. I don't think Ally Financial has anything to do with GM's credit cards. — Newslinger talk 04:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Capital One as initial creators with a link to current owners.Gusfriend (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Capital One wasn't actually the original creator. According to Automotive News, GM Card was originally started in 1992 as a joint venture with Household Finance Corp, which was acquired by HSBC Finance (a subsidiary of HSBC) in 2003. Capital One acquired the GM Card portfolio from HSBC in 2012. — Newslinger talk 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had one back in the day, no longer a thing. Could be a small subsection in the main GM article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Bikhchandani[edit]

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

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

An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks; Iamishwar (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would the civilian award make him notable? Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]