< January 03	January 05 >

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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of the Black Hearts[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. Also this is a bootleg album and bootlegs don't make valid Wiki articles. The only reason the band considered this album one of their own and this article was even here at all was because of its cover art that's nothing but a disturbingly offensive copyright violation. With that, it's time for this page to really be gone for good....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no distinct rule about bootlegs being ineligible for articles. See WP:UNRELEASED which says that an unreleased album (including a bootleg) can be notable if it has received reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in sources and "is perhaps the most bootlegged black metal release of all time". Pikavoom ^Talk 07:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article can be improved with better sources from the world of books, and it looks like there are few sources only if you do a standard Internet search. Do a Google Books search and you will find the album discussed extensively in many music history books, such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], among others. It got coverage largely for its cover featuring a real dead body (that's why the WP infobox has no image), but it's still coverage, and the album is considered an important entry in early black metal. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing those sources, I've integrated them into the article as well as some of my own that I found. LaunchOctopus (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note - Back in 2008, this album survived a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn of the Black Hearts, when the title of the article was slightly different (a "The" was missing). That is probably why the notice about multiple AfDs does not appear here. Admittedly, notability rules were more lenient back then. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What if we just merge with the band's article? Then we can have good info and reliable sources about this bootleg album without necessarily making it have its own article. Would that be a good compromise?SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the months-old merge proposal on the talk page didn't produce any comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When there are two articles and each is functional on its own, merging them requires a well-reasoned rationale; see WP:MERGEREASON and the associated WP:NOTMERGE. A proposal to merge is not a "compromise" just because you disagree with where this discussion is going. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several more sources, and this is a notable release in the subgenre and historical scene. LaunchOctopus (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NMUSIC not meeting the criteria does not mean the article must be deleted. I agree that the guidelines in this case are only borderline due to the coverage being trivial and not meeting standard notability guidelines. However I do not see sufficient reason in this particular example to warrant deletion of the article. This is a rare case of me applying WP:IGNORE - I think deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia and so the official guidelines should be ignored. The sources are trivial, however there is enough of them that I am satisfied this article has cause to remain. Such-change47 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Četverolist[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The cited article is mostly quotes from the building's owner and I cannot find more substantive sources elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of not meeting WP:GNG and lack of verifiability due to insufficient sigcov. Such-change47 (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Masterhatch (talk) 22:08, 11 January 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 Indiana Invaders. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Invaders Soccer Complex[edit]

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

Local South Bend soccer complex doesn't demonstrate notability, with limited coverage outside routine listings and passing mentions. Hosted some PDL (amateur) games a decade ago which makes little difference. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana Invaders, as the complex doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana Invaders as above. Giant Snowman 12:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, the complex is in no way independently notable. Star Mississippi 23:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – as per all above. Fun fact, I've actually played quite a few games at this complex (including my lone shutout as a goalkeeper!) Therefore, I can say with first-hand experience that there is no way to fit nearly 5,000 people around any of the fields there. I'll be personally sad to see this go, but there's absolutely no reason for this article's continued existence. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana Invaders as above.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana Invaders as per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana Invaders as the subject has insufficient notability to warrant a standalone article, however WP:RFD applies and it would improve Wikipedia by being redirected to a main article. Such-change47 (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metaprism[edit]

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

I searched for coverage of this band in RS and did not find significant coverage to meet WP:NORG. There are a few hits on Google News but none of them meet WP:SIGCOV. I did find this album review but I don't think it meets WP:RS and if it did, it is only one source while multiple are required. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a couple of sources and added, but it's not enough. Chelokabob (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two RS here...doesn't pass GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Such-change47 (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Robson[edit]

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

Meets neither GNG or NFOOTY having never played in a fully professional league. I can't find any significant coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per nom, clearly fails GNG and NFOOTY. I did manage to find the details of his one goal for Indiana Invaders though, incredibly enough considering the otherwise lack of coverage for his career. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Juggyevil (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think there was some debate when the article was created whether the US Premier Development League was fully professional but it doesn't appear to have ever been. --Jimbo^[online] 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV that would indicate the subject warrants a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daya Shankar Singh[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non notable politician who fails to meet any of the criterion named in WP:NPOL. A before search mirrors the sources used in the article as a supermajority of the hits were all in unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vice-president of a local party, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass GNG or NPOL, most hits are passing mentions about his misogynistic comments. As an aside, I wouldn't call the Uttar Pradesh BJP a local party, UP has a population of 200 million people, and the BJP is the dominant party there. AryKun (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is A well notable person he is vice president of bjp uttar pradesh ( BJP Is the biggest party in world ) He is deputy head Of bjp in state .....Angad Chhabra (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC) (Page author commented at talk page of AfD. Moving it here. Hemantha (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Comment — Angad Chhabra is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have pointed, he has not won any election. Neither held any major public post. Fails WP:NPOL. The draft was declined at Draft:Daya Shankar Singh. This case is similar to the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit Bharatiya. Venkat TL (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are many party vice-presidents at state level; it's a lower-order party functionary role, nothing in the role itself is notable. I did a brief search in Hindi of दयाशंकर सिंह; there appears no SIGCOV whatsoever, the name pops up as present at meetings (unsurprising given the role), but no more information available. Willing to change !vote if appropriate sourcing can be identified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EurOut.org[edit]

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

I am unable to find any evidence that this blog was notable during its existence, nor does its own (archived) website make a case beyond how it distinguished itself from non-European content. Note: this is not EUROUT, nor is it run by the same people, or I'd handle this editorially. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Nominator Comment unable to find the LGBTQ+ delsort, if it exists, and have made a notification here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EurOut.org. Noting for the sake of transparency. Star Mississippi 21:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, and this article was created by the blog's PR Officer. Politanvm ^talk 22:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication it meets WP:GNG. No reliable sources are cited. Multi7001 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient notability for inclusion, appears promotional. Such-change47 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Jack Stein[edit]

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

Article created by an editor with a (declared) COI. While there was a burst of coverage around Stein's disappearance, there has been virtually nothing since and no indication this is a notable missing person situation. I do not see that this meets the bar for an article. Star Mississippi 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no showing that the missing person is notable, and little widespread publicity about the disappearance. Kablammo (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really need to hash out a specific higher threshold for crime/disappearance articles, because while they inevitably create a little burst of news coverage when they happen (if it bleeds, it leads), they almost never have any lasting coverage or impact. The subject here is, for better or worse, a routine disappearance. Since we are not a news site, we should not be covering it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be that there is insufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. 28bytes (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixport[edit]

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

WP:PROMO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, appears to meet WP:NCORP and no longer reads like an advert after a rewrite by author J7Gor. Ref bombing could be cut down by removing sources with only passing mentions/non-significant coverage, but enough sources exist to demonstrate notability e.g. [6], [7], [8]. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those references meet WP:ORGIND as they are either based on a company announcement or based on an interview. All of the information originates from company sources. ORGIND requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking my keep !vote – upon further review of the sources and reading HighKing's analysis, I'm convinced ORGIND isn't met. I haven't found any other sources that attribute their information to something other than company press releases and CEO interviews, so I'll move to Delete. Redirecting to Jihan Wu is an option, but he's only one of two co-founders of supposedly equal importance (though Yuesheng Ge is a redlink). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging David Gerard, as I admire his work on cryptocurrency-related entities and subjects. Dear David, you don't need to put your vote or else we both may be violating AfD rules as per WP:CANVAS - However, the call is yours. As I feel, your valued opinion (as a comment) will be enough to give a direction to this AfD. Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources look plausibly RS for CORPDEPTH to me, though I didn't go through all of them - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This page needs to be kept, the sources are accurate and I think it's a good addition to the project.Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike as sock. – robertsky (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's try once more now that we're clear of the holidays
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's accurate analysis. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:NCORP Matrixport is mentioned, discussed or featured in a number of RS sources (including Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg News and Crowdfund insider) - these articles do not appear to me to be simply republishing press releases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Deathlibrarian, you've mentioned a number of publications - for example Forbes, written by a staff member, which you say is more than a republished press release. Perhaps you could point to the part of that article which meets the WP:ORGIND section of WP:CORPDEPTH, in particular, the part I quoted above about "Independent Content"? Much obliged, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there's quite a few - In this Swissinfo article, the second part of the article is some commentary on the company This article - discusses Matrixport's fund raising, and how its the company is valued at more than $1 billion This Bloomberg article discusses Matrixport being spun off Bitmain, and goes into the financial details - This Nikkei Asia article discusses cryptocurrency in Singapore, and Matrixport is discussed as part of that, this article, the first half relates to a press release, but the second part discusses the origins of Matrixport. There's others. These aren't just simple re-releases of press releases, or straight interviews, they are staff written commentary discussing Matrixport (sometimes mixed with information from a press release, which there is of course nothing wrong with). In addition, the first part of this Forbes article appears to be related to a press release, but the second part appears to be staff written commentary about the company. Overall, the commentary here in this RS for this company clearly goes beyond "Trivial or incidental coverage" and so easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no "Independent Content" in any of those articles. The "commentary" is simply rewording whatever announcement they're "reporting" on. If there wasn't an announcement then we wouldn't see several other articles in different publications all publishing and regurgitating the same "news". That isn't "Independent Content". Looking at the references you've listed:
      - The Swissinfo article is clearly based on a company announcement - for example here is one article dated the day before and here are a couple of other articles with the same date covering the same announcement. I cannot identify much by way of "Independent Content" in any one of there and therefore they fail WP:ORGIND.
      - Same observation on the "Deal Street Asia" article covering the topic company's raising of $100m and reaching "unicorn" status - same date, covering the same detail, no "Independent Content and also fails ORGIND.
      - The Bloomberg reference is also covering the same announcement. You say it "goes into the financial details" - all of the articles do but the Bloomberg article is also relying on information from the CEO Ge Yuesheng. Also fails ORGIND.
      - The Nikkei Asia article does not discuss anything about Matrixport (based on the link you included). They're mentioned in the tag line but the "article" is a single sentence. Is that the correct link to the article you're referring to?
      - The livemint article is actually based on this Bloomberg story (cos it says it right under the "2 min read" tagline) which in turn is based entirely on an interview with the new CEO Ge Yuesheng. So which it may not be based on a press release, neither does it contain "Independent Content" as per ORGIND, therefore fails ORGIND. In addition, same details with the same dates appear in other publications as we've seen before.
      - Finally, you reference a "Forbes" article but you link to a "Fortune" article. This article consists of a summary of the previous raising of capital (see the "unicorn" articles above) followed by a recounting of the details provided by the CEO Ge Yuesheng in an interview. That is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
    You say that although an article may be "sometimes mixed with information from a press release", you haven't highlighted anything (paragraph number?) from those articles which meets *both* CORPDEPTH and ORGIND at the same time. Sure, there might be a single throwaway comment in an article that can't be tracked back to an announcement but that's a long way from the standard requires of references that may be used to establish notability. You highlight that the publications are RS and contain more that trivial or incidental coverage but you're ignoring ORGIND, especially the "Independent Content" aspect. As per WP:SIRS, each reference much meet all the criteria, so even if an article (as you say) meets RS and CORPDEPTH, if the in-depth parts aren't "Independent Content", the article fails ORGIND and therefore WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing I've gone to quite a bit of trouble to individually reference the articles here, discuss them and point out how they include RS and meet CORPDEPTH.. and I can see you have basically disagreed with all these - at this stage, I'm not sure there's much point in continuing, so at this point I think it best that I just agree to dissagree, so others can contribute. Thanks very much for the discussion, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Deathlibrarian, I can agree with you that the sources meet RS and CORPDEPTH but not ORGIND which is what I've been saying. Happy to leave it, thanks for engaging. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As with most crypto-related articles, what is independent is either not reliable or not significant and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrix Ramosaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG, almost no coverage, sourcing is currently mostly from a user generated website. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article on an "influencer" and singer. The article sourcing is all native advertising PR placement. A BEFORE search revealed nothing but social media, more PR-junk sites and music videos; nothing of substance. If citations for in-depth SIGCOV can be found in decent reliable sources, I'd reconsider my !vote, but for now, she does not meet our requirements for notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...influencer. non-notable. No charted singles as a singer. Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this could be a case of TOOSOON for the "Albanian Rihanna", but it would be good to have the opinion of an Albanian speaker on the sourcing, since I found it hard to ascertain if they were reliable sources or not Mujinga (talk) 12:50, 11 January 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 per consensus, unanimous response. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Äratus[edit]

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

Appears to be a non notable film, I found nothing in a BEFORE. PROD was removed with the explanation "clearly not PROD material now", but no additions to satisfy the guidelines of WP:NFILM were added with its removal. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was released by Tallinnfilm. There are references for the film's notability: Postimees has an article about the film. Keskus and Filmileht both give detailed synopsis. Won at least three international awards. ExRat (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been featured in a number of film festivals, it has won awards, there is RS for it, and notable actors are in it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Without conducting any research, I can see it passes on WP:NFILM #2; in addition, the links ExRat provides check out. Curbon7 (talk) 04:32, 7 January 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. Consensus is that he is not notable. If the draft article on his company makes it to mainspace, I have no objection to restoring history for a merge or redirect at that time. Star Mississippi 16:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Weiner[edit]

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

This individual is only notable as the co-founder of Overtime (sports network), which has been deleted as it was promotional in nature. I see no evidence of independent notability in the references given. If a non-promotional article can be written about the company, a redirect can be created to that article. Slashme (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Slashme (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Slashme (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Please explain how being the co-founder of a major digital media company, and the creation of a groundbreaking basketball that has been featured in almost all the major American media outlets, does not make someone notable? Also, the removal of the Overtime Sports page does make sense and will be re-written. It is certainly a notable company. Bankrupt305 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the topic of Overtime is notable, but Weiner is not independently notable. We don't need separate articles about Weiner, Overtime, and Overtime Elite. --Slashme (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first substantial content of this article was created by an employee of the company. --Slashme (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, notability is inherited from the company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have closely read the wikipedia criteria for new page creation and have spent time with wikipedia help desk and the normal protocol is for the editors to offer suggestions on how to improve this piece instead of just asking for deletion.

"Follow the normal protocol[edit] When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war."

In this case Zack Weiner more than meets the criteria for notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GNG&redirect=no

There is no puffery in the article. And there isn't inherited notability from the company - he founded the company and a professional basketball league. So I'll ask editors how to improve this page, instead of having it be deleted. Bankrupt305 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankrupt305 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no Overtime (sports network) article. This is a straw man argument.

I just became aware that there is a Draft:Overtime (sports network) article which is not in main space. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bankrupt305: Given that you are an employee of Overtime, why did you move this article from the Draft namespace, given that you have a conflict of interest?—Bagumba (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bagumbai’m not sure what you mean. I have declared myself an employee on my page. If I did something I wasn’t supposed to do it wasn’t intentional. Bankrupt305 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankrupt305: Typically, we'd want someone independent to vet out the draft before moving it to mainspace. That would be a better forum to discuss improving the article to possibly meet notability standards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Bagumba. I believe Zack more than meets the criteria. I have tried to follow Wikipedia standards but am learning the process. There are plenty of third party sources from news sources of the highest standards. There is no puffery, etc. and hope that you can approve. Thanks again. Bankrupt305 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My analysis of the current references finds no usable in-depth sources to establish that the subject (Mr. Weiner) meets the requirements for a stand-alone article in mainspace. Most of the reference articles are about the company, Overtime; not about the co-founder. I don't see a benefit for re-incubating this in draft space—it's been tossed back and forth already. If qualified biographic coverage materializes, an uninvolved Wikipedian (perhaps from WikiProject Sports) can start a fresh draft. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 sources

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Scottyoak2
Beer, Jeff (2021-04-14). "How this startup is redesigning pro basketball for the creator economy". Fast Company. Retrieved 2021-11-19.		not assessed	mentions the subject in only one sentence	✘ No
"Zack Weiner". Leaders. Retrieved 2021-11-19.	Unknown author	unknown fact-checking	But the entire piece has a promotional tone.	✘ No
Spangler, Todd (2019-02-14). "Overtime Banks $23 Million From Spark Capital, MSG Networks, Carmelo Anthony and Others". Variety. Retrieved 2021-11-19.			mentions the subject in only one sentence	✘ No
McGrath, Ben (2019-06-19). "The Brooklyn Startup Helping High-School Athletes Go Viral". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2021-11-19.			has a few bio bits; no depth	✘ No
Patel, Sahil (2021-04-22). "WSJ News Exclusive \| Overtime Raises $80 Million From Jeff Bezos, Drake, NBA Stars and Others". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2021-11-19.			mentions the subject in only one sentence	✘ No
Draper, Kevin (2021-03-04). "A New League's Shot at the N.C.A.A.: $100,000 Salaries for High School Players". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 5, 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-19.			no coverage of the subject himself	✘ No
Tucker, Kyle. "Inside Overtime Elite, the start-up that's disrupting the basketball world: 'It's even more than I thought it would be'". The Athletic. Retrieved 2021-11-19.	not assessed	not assessed	paywalled	? Unknown
"Forty Under 40: Zack Weiner". www.sportsbusinessjournal.com. Archived from the original on November 19, 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-19.	? Not sure. Partially subject-submitted	? The independent portion lacks biographical information.	? But the bio details appear to be subect-submitted.	? Unknown
"Zack Weiner". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-11-19.	"The description above is provided by Zack."	?	No depth	✘ No
"Overtime Co-Founder Zack Weiner On Evolving Nature How Fans Consume, Share Content Socially". www.sporttechie.com. Retrieved 2021-11-19.	interview	The intro perhaps.	A couple sentences in the intro, but the rest is all an interview.	✘ No
Jackson, Eric (2018-03-05). "start-up Overtime found a smart way to build sports media brand COMMENTARY". www.cnbc.com. CNBC. Retrieved 2021-11-19.			Only a brief mention of the subject. The article is about Overtime.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Scottyoak2 (talk)Thank you for your feedback. Here are a few articles that are written primarily about Zack from credible sources and establish him as a leading voice in next generation sports media. I'd agree with you about INHERITED, if he was simply an employee. But he co-founded the company and launched a league of great notoriety.

Bosilkovski, Igor. "Meet The Under 30 Entrepreneur Who Just Raised $80 Million For His Sports Media Startup". Forbes.
Burns, Mark J. (May 19, 2017). "Overtime Co-Founder Zack Weiner On Evolving Nature How Fans Consume, Share Content Socially". Sports Business Journal.
Abbott, Henry (August 30, 2020). "BRING IT IN: What is Overtime Elite doing? A conversation with founder and president Zack Weiner". TrueHoop.
Meltzer, David (March 5, 2020). "How to Create a Brand That Resonates With Young People" (Video). Entrepreneur. Zack Weiner shares his thoughts on marketing to Gen Z.
"1-ON-1: OVERTIME'S ZACK WEINER AND CHLOE PAVLECH DISCUSS THE LAUNCH OF OVERTIME WBB". Beyond the W.

I hope these help and that you'll reconsider your vote. Bankrupt305 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have evaluated these additional source suggestions below. I have read and assessed all of the listed potential sources, and also dilegently performed WP:BEFORE. I've attempted to locate one solid source article upon which to build a reasonably-detailed biography of the subject. I have not been successful. The coverage all seems to focus on the company, and the only information about Mr. Weiner that could be summarized from it would amount to a limited résumé. I still think this article should be deleted. Beyond that, I still think the construction of a neutral draft summarizing the history (thus far) of the comapny and/or league would be fruitful. Some of the sources that I've evaluated in this discussion could likely be used to verify details about the founders within that company/league article; because the draft author wouldn't be seeking to establish notability of the founders, given that they wouldn't be the subjects of the draft. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4 additional sources

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Scottyoak2
Igor Bosilkovski. "Meet The Under 30 Entrepreneur Who Just Raised $80 Million For His Sports Media Startup". Forbes contributor sites. Retrieved January 10, 2022.		Forbes.com contributors	No biographical information that isn't already mentioned in the sources above. Despite the title, most of the article is about the company.	✘ No
"BRING IT IN: What is Overtime Elite doing?". TrueHoop.com. Retrieved January 10, 2022.		Audio of interview. Subject talking about himself.	? Not assessed.	✘ No
David Meltzer (March 5, 2020). "How to Create a Brand That Resonates With Young People". entrepreneur.com. Retrieved January 10, 2022.	"Zack Weiner shares his thoughts on marketing to Gen Z."	Video of interview. Subject talking about himself.	? Not assessed.	✘ No
"1-On-1: Overtime\'s Zach Weiner and Chloe Pavlech Discuss the Launch of Overtime WBB". beyondthew.com. Beyond The W. Retrieved January 10, 2022.	Transcript of interview with the subject and another Overtime employee.	No byline; no date.	? Not assessed.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Thank you Scottyoak2 (talk). There is an article on Overtime in the draft section if you'd like to evaluate. Best Bankrupt305 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 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 draftified by User:ReaIdiot. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TenGraphs[edit]

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

Non-notable musucian and producer. I failed to find independent reliable sources for him. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gnews hits are mostly simply his name associated with an album release or what have you. Nothing in Gnewspapers search. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. AfD is not for proposing mergers, and at any rate that proposal has no consensus here. Sandstein 19:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Race-reversed casting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic is reasonably notable, but only as a sub-heading in Color-blind casting. I am proposing this AfD to suggest a merge and redirect from Race-reversed casting to Color-blind casting. The novel use of "photo negative" casting is notable only in one or two specific cases, such as the production of Othello masterminded by Sir Patrick Stewart. Therefore, I think it makes more sense to discuss these particular cases as specific instances of color-blind casting on that article page rather than to contrive an article based on an esoteric form of casting that does not have independent notability separate from the one or two cases. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there are sufficient 3rd party sources to affirm notability under WP:GNG. Furthermore, as was agreed on the talk page back when there was all that bruhaha, Colour-blind casting is a similar but different form of casting. Colour-blind is where race is irrelevant, "Photo negative" is when the race of characters are deliberately reversed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep if you want this merged this should be a merge request and not at AfD. You can try a merge proposal following the steps at WP:MERGEPROP. (However there was a recent merge proposal that seemed to result in no merge). snood1205 19:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD isn't the right venue to propose a merge, the article cites sources which seem to discuss the subject beyond the Patrick Stewart production, and I don't think it's fair to describe the subject as a subtopic of Color-blind casting (because it isn't colour blind). Hut 8.5 20:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost every merge I've ever seen has come out of an AfD. This seems like a good place to start. I doubt a merger proposal will get any attention on a low-traffic page like that, but I'll give it a shot if there's no consensus for that procedural reason. @The C of E: you're mistaken regarding the scope of Color-blind casting, which also covers non-traditional casting and is therefore the right place to write about recondite casting decisions such as this one. Let's talk about GNG, though, by running through the sources. You've framed the article as a notable casting technique, but the sources don't support that. The sources support the notability of Patrick Stewart's race-reversed production of Othello. I'm going to be listing them in the order they appear as of this revision.
1. This source is entirely about the casting of Stewart's Othello.
2. Again, this is about Stewart's casting of Othello.
3. Othello again.
4. Othello.
5. Othello.
6. Othello.
7. Our first and only non-Othello source. It's some random .edu releasing a blog post (press release?) about a non-notable director casting a non-notable all African American production of Death of a Salesman. The source article doesn't even mention race-reversed casting or photo negative casting. Probably because it's an all African American cast rather than a "reversed" cast of black and white actors.
8. And we're back to Othello coverage.
9. The Guardian on Stewart's Othello.
10. I don't know what this is... some kind of textbook? No quotation to go off of, and it's used to source some vague prose about it being praised.
11. Othello again, and it's a trivial mention at that.

So where's the WP:SIGCOV required for GNG? You can argue sigcov for Stewart's casting in Othello. You can't argue sigcov for "race-reversed casting," because it's not independently notable outside of that production. That turns it into a weird single-purpose WP:COATRACK or an example of WP:NOTNEWS. @Snood1205 and Hut 8.5: would you please reconsider your votes with that in mind? Thanks for your time! AlexEng^(TALK) 11:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken because the Colour-blind article clearly describes it as "blind casting". This is not "blind casting", this is deliberately and intentionally casting characters in reverse race roles. The term "race reversed" casting was used as the title of the article as an WP:NDESC title opposed to "Photo negative casting" as it was originally. This isn't a COATRACK (which is an essay not a policy anyway) as it isn't trying to obscure anything or go off on a tangent. Also, NOTNEWS doesn't apply here either as this isn't OR, a news report, a who's who or gossip. It is only about a theatrical concept that may have been utilised rarely but is one that exists. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing several points here. Color-blind casting discusses variants of non-traditional casting and can easily be expanded to cover this more or less unique casting decision for Stewart's Othello within the context of "race-reversed" casting. The concept of "photo negative" or "race reversed" casting is also so needlessly restrictive that it's going to be esoteric by its very nature; it implies a racial binary. Who are you going to cast for a traditionally Asian, Latina, or Navajo character in "photo negative" casting? What's the opposite of Asian? Race-reversed casting is a coatrack, because it digresses from the arguably notable casting choice for Stewart's Othello and focuses on the practice as a whole, which is not notable independent of Stewart's Othello. As an analogy, consider if I created an article about the World Trade Center cross, but I named it Formation of steel beam crosses in building collapse. Yeah, it happened in a notable way, but framing the article as a discussion of the creation of crosses made of steel beams as a result of building collapse is creating a coatrack. Lastly, WP:ITEXISTS is not a solid argument, and WP:NOTNEWS says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, which is an argument against WP:SIGCOV, which is explicitly why that policy exists. See WP:WHYN. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a start the argument you're making isn't based on the GNG. The GNG just says that the article subject needs to have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. This subject clearly does. It doesn't say anything about only having notability in the context of X. Nor do I see how you can apply the likes of NOTNEWS, because this concept was still getting substantial coverage over a decade after Stewart's production of Othello. Combined with the fact that the concept has been applied to other productions (which the article discusses, with sources), I think it's suitable for a standalone article. I wouldn't object to it being merged into an article about non-traditional casting, but we don't have an article about non-traditional casting. We only have an article about colour-blind casting, and it's definitely not in scope for that as it involves casting people by race. Hut 8.5 12:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GNG demands significant coverage of the actual topic. The topic that is being covered significantly in the above sources is not race-reversed casting. It's the race-reversed casting of Stewart's Othello. I could likewise not claim notability on Deaths caused by stingrays because one event received significant coverage: Death of Steve Irwin. Do you understand where I'm coming from? What other notable, reliably sourced productions are there in the article? If the answer is "none", then will you change your mind? AlexEng^(TALK) 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that interpretation: coverage of race-reversed casting in the context of the Stewart production is coverage of race-reversed casting. The sources aren't solely concerned with the details of Stewart's production but with the general concept/idea of race-reversed casting. And as I've said the article discusses examples of race-reversed casting other than Stewart's. Hut 8.5 17:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists and Hog Farm: I'm going to go ahead and courtesy ping the two remaining active participants from the last AfD, as SchroCat is retired. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to color-blind casting. While there are clearly different ways to approach this, and technically "color blind" implies at first glance that race is not considered in casting, while we also have cases of deliberately changing some or all of the race roles involved. The thing is in this case "color-blind casting" is a catch-all term for a variety of casting techniques that are basically anything other than trying to cast based on the phenotype of historical characters or the perceived and understood phenotype of fictional characters. I also have to admit that I dislike this term because at some level if assumes a binary of race, which is not workable in any context, and clearly not in a global context when you have countries like China which has 56 designated ethnic groups which are in essence like the racial groups in the US. Also, color-blind casting though inprecise, could also include the changes of ethnicities of a character that are not exactly racial classificiations, while this term more clearly invokes race. I think it is general considered a sub-topic of "color blind casting" in actual use, although in theory technical "color-blind" casting is only when you ignore race in casting, this often involves deliberately changing race for stylistic or social reasons, but in many cases it is hard to tell. Was Perry White recast as a black man in "Man of Steel" because Laurence Fishburne was the best actor they could find in a race neutral set of actors, or did they do it because of various stylistic or political inclinations of those making the film. I have seen people suggest the former, but not with any actual evidence they have direct insights into the thoughts of the directors. Next, was the casting of the role of Iris West in the TV Series Flash a result of feeling the actress they chose was the best, or was it for stylistic, political and story telling goals of the show. In that case it is at most a 1 color blind decision, as opposed to cases of total color blind casting, because there every relative role to that actress cast is done in a way that clearly acknowedges their race, there are other cases we can present where multiple roles are cast with people who based on either their looks or the racial identity of the actors could not be related. In some cases these are handwaved by making some people become adopted to explain their non-conforming look, but in other cases, most often in musical productions, they just go with it. Some of this brings to mind the Muppet Christmas Carol where Bob Cratchet and his wife are played by Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy, but they make all their boys frogs and all the girls pigs. The even more fun thing on the Flash issue is that in the new Flash film the role of Iris West is again played by an actress who is generally classed as African-American, so is this a case of race role reversal from the comics, or is this a case where the changes to the role done in the TV show have become so deeply entenched in the public perception of the role that those making the film knew that if they did not cast an actress of African descent as Iris West, they would be savaged in some parts of social media and maybe elsewhere with vicious attacks as "white washing" the character and such? It is hard to say, although it does appear that at one point in development there were also two Euro-American actresses in consideration for the role of Iris West, so this may be a case of total color blind casting. My all time favorite to bring up is the show Merlin where an Afro-Guyanese descended British actress played the role of Ghinevere, but it was clearly not 100% color blind casting in that the role of her brother was also cast with an actor of African descent. Of course, maybe this is the result of fully color-blind casting decisions for the main characters where the main goal is to get strong actors, and for secondary characters they considered look to match where relation was established in a way that they did not for the primary characters. It is hard to know, and unless we can find secondary reliable sources that discuss this in depth, instead of my gathering notes from direct observations of the film, and then reading comments on TV tropes, it is going to be hard to justfy having full free standing articles on sub-topics of this idea, especially where what is what is not well established, and a lot of the discussion of it comes from social media posts that often put way more heat than light on the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So on futher review, race reverse casting seems to be the changing of all the races of the characters to tell a new story. I would argue the Death of a Salesman is not a case of this, if it is than The Wiz should be mentioned here, because if we are treating a total cast change than clearly recasting The Wizard of Oz with an all-African American cast is a thing. However, what was done in this one production of Othello was retelling the story by switching all the main characters races. So why exactly are we not speaking of how Guess Who (film) is a race reversal film of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? The reason may be in part because those two films are not really the same story, just have some very minor conditions of the plot in common. The big thing in my mind is that "color-blind casting" does not literally mean race is ignored in cating, it means that it is approached in non-traditional ways, or is considered less than an absolute condition. The term covers a lot of similar but different things. In part because we have to judge the results and not always directorial]producetorial intent. For example, in some cases race changes from the material being adapted will be called for in screen plays or scripts for stage plays before casting is done, but sometimes screen plays and scripts will be rewritten to make sure they conform to the people who have actually been cast.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our color-blind casting article treats any change from the race of the character/actor in either previous productions, or based on the known historical context of a real person as a case of color-blind casting. Thus merging together A-changes between the race/ethnicity of historical figures and the ones of the actor protraying them, 2-changes between the race/ethnicity of a fictional character, and the race/ethnicity of the character in a new production (it includes the Flash TV series under this rubric, which involves changes the race of multiple realted characters in a unified way), and 3-changes in the race of a role that is explicitly non-human and so tehcnically in the role itself does not involve race. The example for the last is the casting of Dean Cain as Superman in Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. The fact that Dean Cain was of mostly European but partial Japanese ancestry may or may not make this different than if a fully Japanese ancestried actor had been given the role. The fact that his birth parents were shown and were cast with actors who at least appear to be of fully European descent may also have some bearing, although our article only mentions that Cain who was of Japanese descent was given the role, and previously the role had been portrayed by Euro-American actors, and Superman was always drawn to appear white in the comics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit what I find oddest is that our Color-blind casting page mentions Spider-man homecoming as a case because a very minor character was recast from white to Hispanic, but does not mention that MJ Watson, who is arguably one of the 3 most important characters in the franchise, and if we consider the Frnachise as a whole may be the second most essentially character after Peter Parker/Spiderman, has a changed race. I guess some would argue since this MJ Watson is Michelle Jones Watson not Mary Jane Watson she is a different character, but I think from any story telling of stylistic view of what is going on, the name change does not make her a different character, she is still filling the same character niche and the name changes in this case leads to her being still called MJ most of the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cansu Gürel[edit]

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

As with Yonca Şentürk and the articles linked in her AfD, we have a clear consensus that WP:NOTFPL apperances and youth appearances fail to establish notability. It is WP:GNG and only GNG that should determine the article's fate. The one source cited that comes even close to showing decent coverage is the Hurriyet piece but it's not enough on its own and the article contains no in-depth analysis of Gürel at all. Google searches and a Turkish search failed to yield even one instance of significant coverage in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demet Kılınç[edit]

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

As with Yonca Şentürk and the articles linked in her AfD, we have a clear consensus that WP:NOTFPL apperances and youth appearances fail to establish notability. It is WP:GNG and only GNG that should determine the article's fate. All 9 references currently in the article provide only trivial mentions of the subject. A Turkish search also failed to yield even one example of significant coverage in independent WP:RS so, as far as I can see, this is an obvious case for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Chughtai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aisha Chughtai

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

Fails notability. Being elected to a non-major office and just existing does not warrant notability

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 4 January 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 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Minneapolis City Council is not a "non-major office" and notability for officeholders has been established since nearly every current and recent member has a Wikipedia article. The city is undeniably major and the Council has received international attention because of the George Floyd protests and it's subsequent police reform initiatives. I see no reason Chughtai is an exception with regards to notability and hope you will expand on your basis for nominating nearly every incoming Councilmember's page for deletion. Stanloona2020 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: We should be encouraging articles like this, not deleting them. This is not a "non-major office," and in fact it is even more notable than it might look on paper due to the centrality of Minneapolis to the demonstrations and unrest that have been occurring in the US (and other western countries) since 2020. Decisions made by the Minneapolis City Council (such as a proposal to create a new city public safety department instead of the police department) have been nationally noteworthy. It makes no sense to delete this article, when Wikipedia would in fact benefit from articles on all current members of the Minneapolis City Council and in fact quite uncontroversially had articles on each then-current member before the 2021 city election (which is when new member Chughtai was elected). Moncrief (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebru Aydın (footballer)[edit]

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

Similar case to recently deleted İpek Özgan and Büşra Demirörs. Aydın has only played in WP:NOTFPL leagues and her caps for Turkey are only at youth level, youth caps don't confer notability. This source has about 3 sentences that mention her and the rest either only contain one mention or they are stats websites.

Per strong consensus, Aydın is required to meet WP:GNG but I could find nothing about her in a Turkish search. Some coverage of Ebru Aydın exists but nothing really about the footballer of this name that would justify an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While it may be useful, consensus is that it doesn't meet criteria for an article. If someone would like to work on this in draftspace to see if it could possibly work for a merger, I have no objection to restoring it there. Star Mississippi 16:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC News Special episodes[edit]

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

The article is a list of special news episodes. I can’t see any sources discussing the list set as a whole, or any basis for our hosting this list as part of an encyclopedia. Does not pass WP:NLIST. Mccapra (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like to keep it because when people at this article in 10 to 15 years, they know who hosted which broadcast, who was reporting and what was the subject. It can be increased and add references when it comes. College2021 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Mccapra: this is a pointless article. Note that the Keep vote comes from creator of the article: it's not surprising that the creator wants to keep it. Athel cb (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not encyclopaedic. (And also, in my opinion, non-fiction programmes have editions not episodes.) RobinCarmody (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete: as per nom, does not meet WP:NLIST. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has the beginnings of an excellent article but it is incomplete and needs references. One option might be to move it into draftspace. Rillington (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rillington. Peter Ormond 💬 08:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This can be a useful if somewhat niche list. Remember that Wikipedia has plenty of episode lists for TV shows that are frequently less notable. In it's current state, however, it seems to be very short, and if I have to guess, very incomplete. Per Rillington, maybe moving it to draft space is best. Av = λv (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- While some interesting keep arguments have been made, and I appreciate the work that has gone into this, I really do not see what purpose this serves as a Wikipedia article. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the list is nothing like complete (covering only specials covering a few political events in 2018 and 2019) - there are several other issues to my mind. BBC News Specials are often produced at very short notice and are unscheduled (so getting details of older ones would be challenging) -so an episode guide is an odd thing. The titles vary - it is not like BBC News Special is a brand for a series as I think is being implied here, but something used (inconsistently) to denote special coverage of a major event. Indeed BBC News Special redirects to BBC News - it would be odd to have a list of episodes for something that there is not even an article about! In fact the BBC News article does not even mention news specials, which I think seriously brings into question their importance. Sometimes the specials are just essentially extended news bulletins. I do not see what would set them apart from extended special coverage of any event by BBC news in its history, or ITN for that matter. As I say I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but I don't think it meets notability requirements and has too many other issues which in my view preclude it as a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really isn't a list that we should have; the BBC can, and should, break into programming for major news events, and that's not a surprise or something that needs cataloging. Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rillington. Lots of topics on WP have similar list status. Jimthing (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of the arguments here are of the WP:ITSUSEFUL variety, which is not generally accepted as a good argument at AfD. Relisting to see if there are more on-point arguments to be offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really not seeing the notability for each of these special episodes which effectively makes this list non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marky Lopez[edit]

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

Suspected unnotable biographical article of a relatively-obscure Philippine actor. Having tagged as needing added sources and having original research issue since 2013, it is only cited by one source, http://www.pep.ph/news/35420/marky-lopez-doing-his-best-to-be-a-responsible-father-to-five-year-old-daughter-with-former-actress-girlie-sevilla (which for some reason redirected me to https://www.pep.ph/lifestyle/22132/snooky-serna-describes-herself-as-pansexual; unsure if archive.org preserved the old web page). Article is too short, and the filmography section lacks sources. See WP:NACTOR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable. Ctrlwiki • 23:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Hydari[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sikonmina (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Greene[edit]

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

~~Procedural nomination due to User:Salvidrim! deceitful edit summary reasoning.~~ There's a lack of WP:RS for this drummer to pass WP:GNG. Sikonmina (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sikonmina: There was nothing deceitful about it. It shows on the public log that the article for Ed Greene was deleted via PROD on January 3, 2011. However, I do see why there is some confusion. What happened was the article that was deleted via PROD was for a different Ed Greene as this article was originally titled Ed Greene (musician) and created in August 2009. It was moved to the current title without disambiguation in March 2013. Please be careful when you make accusations. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Lee[edit]

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

There is no actual claim to meeting notability guidelines. Being a signer of the role of distinguished stamp collectors is an honor, but it does not seem to meet our notability guidelines, since we do not find indepdent coverage of it. I did several searches. What I found is that some of the links to this article were really meant to go to Alma Theodora Lee, who seems to be the more common usage of "Alma Lee", so even if we keep this article it should not longer be the primary use of Alma Lee. GNG requires independent sources, and the stamp collecting societies own publicatiion honoring those it gives an honor to is not an indepdent source for establishing notability. I see no way to show notability here, and my searches for additional sources turned up nothing. Her one publication is not enough to establish her as a notable writer, so we have nothing here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a bio from the Royal Philatelic Society London. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NPROF, as an elected fellow of a scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor, i.e. the Royal Philatelic Society London.[9] pburka (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...I guess being a woman is easy to delete. Her specialist field think she is worthy "received obituaries in the British Philatelic Bulletin". Whispyhistory (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, given that the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists honours only a handful of people per year (36 in 2020s decade). PamD 09:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: since the deletion nomination, the article has been improved quite a bit. ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable in her field. The RDP appoint only three or four members annually and membership is regarded as the highest award in philately. Multiple gold medals in competitive philately and a medal is awarded in her honour by the Royal Philatelic Society. Third party obituaries and other biographical profiles that meet the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons set out by PamD and others. Edwardx (talk) 23:33, 7 January 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 due to lack of independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Storm (Coast Redwood)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability criterion. Both https://famousredwoods.com and https://mdvaden.com are self-published sites by people who are not published experts. See Talk:Grogan's Fault for a similar topic that was determined to be non-notable by consensus. — hike395 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fail the the general notability criterion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqmhelios11 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MD Vaden is a certified arborist, the credentials can be viewed on his site, and example of a self-published site meeting Wikipedia's exceptional critera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqmhelios11 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC) The deletion request above violates WP:PROD by not trying to find an alternative, suggesting the poster wants to see the information gone from the site and rejects 2 reputable sources as noteworthy. Furthermore, the poster violates WP:DNB. The General Notability Criterion states that at least 1 of the criteria must be met outlined on its page. As this is at least the most in detail covering of a largely secret tree on the internet, it meets the guidelines[reply]

Comment mdvaden.com site is a promotional personal site for mdvaden and there is no indication he is considered an expert on Redwood trees. Therefore it is not a WP:reliable source. famousredwoods.com is privately registered and there does not appear to be an about page or similar to identify who it is written by. Additionally, the website is only valid with an insecure http url and I therefore conclude that it is not a reliable source either. We need to find WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources and neither of those sources meets the latter requirement. noq (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Noq: I don't believe that "the site can only be accessed through http" has any bearing on whether it is a reliable source. it does however seem to be a self-published source with no information on editorial control, so it probably isn't reliable. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not on its own no, but part of an overall impression of amateurish setup. noq (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
1. We discussed whether Vaden passes the expert bar at Talk:Grogan's Fault. Being a certified arborist is not the same as "being established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (quoting from WP:RSSELF). Vaden has not published his work in independent publications, and therefore is not considered an expert by Wikipedia.
2. WP:PROD is a process for uncontroversial deletions. It is not required. I thought this might be a controversial deletion, so decided to bring this up at WP:AFD for discussion, rather than attempting a unilateral deletion.
3. I don't believe that I have violated any behavioral guidelines of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if Jqmhelios11 feels bitten. I believe that I've been respectful in my limited dealings with them.
4. This article truly does not currently appear to pass WP:GNG. GNG says that an article should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
  - The article is currently only supported by mdvaden.com and famousredwoods.com. Both of those sources were previously determined to be unreliable (by consensus).
  - I checked: I cannot find any other sources than mdvaden.com and famousredwoods.com for Hail Storm. Maybe Jqmhelios11 can find something?
  - I'm not sure what Jqmhelios11 means that WP:GNG requires only 1 criteria: I quoted it above.

— hike395 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ I agree with noq and hike395 that the sources currently in the article are not reliable and so do not speak to notability. This page was passed through AfC, where it was tagged "sources exist". When I mentioned this AfD to the AfC reviewer Jeromeenriquez, they responded by removing the "sources exist" tag. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I personally was not able to find any other sources (but I don't really know the best way to search for something like this, I was just seeing what my search engine spat out). --JBL (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I went through the Google searches described in WP:Before, and came up empty-handed. — hike395 (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did search for the resouces and it was linking to some material but when i check it now there is nothing. Please, i agree with my mistake. it shoukld be nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks Jeromeenriquez (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying! In that case, I have updated my !vote to "delete". --JBL (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, no independent sources exist that support the notability, and per the prior discussions at Talk:Grogan's Fault.--Kev min § 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator and the delete votes above all make very strong arguments as to why we shouldn't trust the sources in this article. Topic therefore fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bandit (Movie Park Germany)[edit]

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

Sourced exclusively to a database entry and the official website. A web search only returned more of that kind, as well as fandom wikis, rating websites, and a not-quite-significant description at https://www.thecoasterkings.com/10-coasters-that-should-be-rmcd-and-10-that-shouldnt/. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 4 January 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 St Volodymyr's Cathedral. ✗plicit 14:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy[edit]

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

Probably fails the notability required for WP:EVENT; moreover, no RS talk about this conflict as a whole, only of the individual events (WP:SYNTH).
The fact there is no Ukrainian version of this article despite the fact those events take place there, while not an argument, to me shows how little relevance this topic bears. Veverve (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge back to St Volodymyr's Cathedral from whence it was split. The whole thing has the odor of the conflicts that have beset orthodoxy in Slavic countries (and their American outposts) for a century, but "solving" the conflict by shoving it into a WP:POVFORK is not the solution. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back and update Looks outdated to me. —Michael Z. 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back -- This is an unnecessary fork for what is only a very short article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman Coaster[edit]

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

Sourced to a single list of new attractions, which is not quite significant coverage. A web search only found various fandom wikis and personal blogs, as well as websites of the operator. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 4 January 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. SpinningSpark 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Team8[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack of reputable sources and dubious editing history. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a nice flow of reputable, independent sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. However, two of them - TechCrunch and Forbes - are questionable in terms of reliability. The Forbes source is written by a contributor and not a staff writer; no editorial oversight exists with contributors. The TechCrunch source as a publisher is often questioned. The other sources though are reliable and compliment TechCrunch and Forbes. Multi7001 (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Forbes and TechCrunch (admittingly they are not very reliable as Multi mentioned. But they can be used to gauge notability in my opinion) covered this company, most reports seem to come from Israeli websites: Calcalist (calcalistech.com, calcalist.co.il), nocamels.com, and the Jerusalem Post. Note that calcalist seems to be the main source of reports, both in Hebrew and in English, smells fishy. This company or group may be somewhat notable in Israel (and even here it appears rather obscure; not a lot Hebrew reporting on it.), but internationaly or in the anglosphere? Definitely not. Av = λv (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that something may not be well-known in the Anglosphere does not mean that it is not notable. What matters is whether it has been covered in reliable sources of any language from any country. And judging by the sources included in the article, this one has. Mlb96 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as follows:
- This TechCrunch article is based entirely on an announcement by Intel. For example, here's an article from the day before from the Jerusalem Post covering the exact same announcement with the same details even using the same quotes from company execs. Not "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
- Reuters article is also entirely based on a company announcement (second sentence confirm it too) with no "Independent Content". Here's the same announcement covered by the New York Times. Fails WP:ORGIND
- The Forbes article is written by a "contributor" therefore fails as a WP:RS
- This Times of Israel article dated 23rd October 2018 is based entirely on this Press Release of the same date with the addition of an interview. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
- The Bloomberg reference makes no secret of the fact it is based entirely on an announcement and interview with various involved executives. It has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.

Contrary to some of the comments above, the criteria for establishing notability is not based on the quantity of coverage and it matters not a whit the language and the country. If source exist in martian, post them here and if they meet NCORP, all good. But none of those references are good for the purposes of establishing notability and since I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. and as per HighKing's assessment and logic. - Hatchens (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Establishing notability through Israeli sources (or any other country) is perfectly legitimate. However, I agree with HighKing's analysis of the sources above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jocco's Mardi Gras Madness[edit]

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

Article sourced solely to the official website; a web search only shows passing mentions or self-published sources such as fandom wikis or web blogs. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I feel like this is something that should have coverage if the claims are true, however I'm unable to identify said coverage. Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder River (ride)[edit]

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

The only independent source used in the article does not even mention the ride. A search engine only shows passing mentions in the context of the bigger amusement parks, and otherwise more official websites, lots of fandom wikis and web blogs. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Neutron's Atomic Flyer[edit]

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

Sourced only to a database entry and the official website, and a web search pretty much only gives more websites of the Movie Park, fandom wikis, and web blogs. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Chasers (roller coaster)[edit]

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

Sourced only to a database entry and the official website, and a web search pretty much only gives fandom wikis, city guides, and the like. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backyardigans: Mission to Mars[edit]

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

Sourced only to a database entry and the official website; no evidence of notability. None of the three names gives anything promising; just more primary sources, fandom wikis, and internet fora. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't show notability. Neo-corelight (Talk) 01:59, 5 January 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 11:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cantero[edit]

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

Recent consensus from Noway AfD and Igesumai AfD that caps for Micronesia are not an automatic notability pass any more. I'm putting Cantero up for deletion as I could not locate any reliable sources showing WP:GNG-level coverage. In fact, I couldn't really find anything other than the two sources already used in the article, which simply confirm his one non-FIFA cap. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and similar Micronesian articles. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 19:06, 9 January 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 11:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Kugumgag[edit]

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

Recent consensus from Noway AfD and Igesumai AfD that caps for Micronesia are not an automatic notability pass any more. I'm putting Kugumgag up for deletion as I could not locate any reliable sources showing WP:GNG-level coverage. In fact, I couldn't really find anything other than the two sources already used in the article, which simply confirm his one non-FIFA cap. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and similar Micronesian articles. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't have the required WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 19:05, 9 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RAKITHA Welangoda[edit]

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

This article is not eligible for WP:CSD, as it makes a claim to significance ("[...] is an famous Srilankan singer,music producer ,audio engineer and songwriter.He is infamous for his two materpieces [...]". I performed a WP:BEFORE search and found no significant coverage of this person. Neither a news search, nor a Google search, brought up anything to suggest notability. jp×g 11:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jp×g 11:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. jp×g 11:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN just self promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - same reasoning as Theroadislong above.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO - this has failed numerous times at AfC and the moved to the mainspace anyway by the article's creator. Dan arndt (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure vanity spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd love to see this deleted because it was written by someone who doesn't know how to user proper CAPITALIZATION, but more seriously, the musician is not notable no matter what the article says. Only visible in the standard streaming and social media services. Fails music notability and doesn't get an article just because he exists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:A7 still applies if the claim of notability is not credible or the claim is false, and this claim is both non-credible and false. It is repeatedly created by a user with a close relationship with the subject (see the deletion log for Rakitha Welangoda in addition to repeated draft attempts), that is generally spammy and anyone who even begins to look into it quickly discovers there's no supporting reliable sources. The article creator has claimed in other talk pages (some now deleted) that this musician is beloved by everyone in their country - well, one would expect some reliable coverage of that then. Singularity42 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you see goofy capitalization in the article title, that is often a sign of someone trying to evade a previous deletion for non-notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author of the article has just been blocked for two weeks for spamming. Just before their block, they wrote the following on the article talk page (which I'm interpreting as a Keep !vote): hey you can check youtube and other medias as well he is truly a great artist. Obviously not enough, but out of fairness to the now-blocked user, I thought I would include that here. I've indicated on their talk page that if they list any reliable sources there (other than YouTube, streaming services, or listings on music purchase sites) and I'll do my best to include them here. Singularity42 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm not sure why this wouldn't be CSD eligible but clearly this is just promotional spam along with being non-notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly just self-promotion spam. Pecors (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Please get rid of this promotional garbage. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Only one source, which is not reliable and nowhere near enough to prove nobility. As others have mentioned it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and almost certainly qualifies for CSD. Obvious self-promotion. bop34 • talk • contribs 03:18, 11 January 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 04:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Business and Finance[edit]

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

Subject fails WP: COMPANY notability and article appears to fail WP:PROMO. Sources are mostly primary (the company's own website) and those that aren't are just generic investopedia pages which are not specific to this company. A quick search for secondary sources turns up nothing, and the article is also structured like a simple course syllabus brochure. Headphase (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it reads like a syllabus brochure, WP:PROMO BrigadierG (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 8 January 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 withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Sutton (author)[edit]

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

~~Author does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- coverage is mostly interviews, WP:PASSING mentions and routine book reviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with OP interpretation that book reviews are routine. Certainly, book reviews of someone's work shows the person's notability and are one of the ways to guage notability. It meets WP:NAUTHOR point 3 "or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". There is also significant coverage like Cengage along with all the book reviews. The tone of the article can be more neutral, but the subject is notable (5,407 library holdings). Additionally, there is some coverage about his legal career, but is behind paywall. VWidrich (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, reviews seem legitimate enough, though some other referenced could maybe be trimmed. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Routine book reviews" is an oxymoron; book reviews always count towards notability for authors. Mlb96 (talk) 06:06, 5 January 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 04:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Adamu (Ghanaian footballer)[edit]

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

Footballe who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in fully pro leagues. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprodded this on the grounds that the articles for both his club and its league claim they are professional, thus an NFOOTY pass. The league is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Top level leagues which are not fully professional apparently on the evidence of this article which is a single player complaining that some players are not paid enough to live on. However, according to this article that situation has now changed and the claim is out of date. SpinningSpark 14:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That talks about an average salary. Is there any evidence of a minimum salary? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as each individual player is paid (at least) that averaged over a year, not the average of all players "ensuring that each player is paid an average salary of GHC 1,5000 a month."

I read it the other way as in they are ensuring that the average of all players' salaries hits that value but that some will be above and some will be below. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did they use the word "each" in that sentence? SpinningSpark 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't matter. The NDC are currently in opposition so this is not something the government has acually done. SpinningSpark 15:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm surprised that I also initially missed that part. Since only trivial coverage seems to exist in the article, its fate should come down to whether anyone can find significant coverage on Adamu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches of "Mohammed Adamu" and "Adamu Mohammed" in relation to the one club that he played for yield little in the way of coverage. Fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. Happy to change my vote if someone can ping me with sources that contradict this statement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for the subject, thus a standalone article in my opinion is not warranted. GauchoDude (talk) 13:34, 7 January 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 11:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nithish[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no coverage in secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extremely difficult to find sources mentioning this individual in particlar due to the common mononym used as his stage name. Cannot find any evidence of notability or even significance, bordering on WP:A7 speedy deletion. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:43, 7 January 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. While the hoax concerns appear to have been addressed, there is not a clear consensus that there's reliable source material at the moment. At the same time, there isn't a clear consensus to delete the article, and conversations about a rename, or redirect should continue editorially. Star Mississippi 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jangladesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic—if not a hoax—is not notable. Not a single reliable source has bothered to document the existence of any such region. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - no reliable sources proferred in support of the region/term even after passing some older deletion nominations. Shyamal (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the nearest thing that comes to it is a region known as "Janglu" - and also some titles for some local chiefs - see this Shyamal (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Jangaldesh as there is no reliable source for the spelling that rhymes with Bangladesh... Shyamal (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Although there are some reliable sources which mentions the area Jangladesh or Janglapradesh as it was known then but I think its coverage or importance is not that much to have its own article, WP:GNG issue. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Struck out 'Delete' vote, as per discussion below. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that support the contention that such a region ever existed. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Note that the Rajasthan's historic north-western region in question is known by multiple similar names, e.g. Jangal Desh, Jangal Pradesh, Jangaladesh, Janglu, Jangal, etc. A cursory search with these terms shows a large number of results at Google Books and I don't have time to check them now. But I can provide relevant quotes from an academic source which is already cited in this article:

Kothiyal, Tanuja (2016). Nomadic Narratives: A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert. Cambridge University Press. pp. 28, 77, 78. ISBN 978-1-107-08031-7.

quotation
p. 28 A part of this desert was also addressed as ‘Jangal’, ‘Jangal Des’ or ‘Jangalu’ referring to the arid wilderness of the region. Contrasted with the neighbouring fertile plains of the Punjab rivers and the Indus, rich loamy lands of Gujarat and the thickly forested plateau of Malwa, its aridity renders a singularity to its character, that of a desert. pp. 77–78 The kingdom of Bikaner was established in 1465, in the area that was traditionally known as Janglu.⁴⁸ The fort-city of Bikaner was founded in 1488, in a place that was strategically located on a route that connected Punjab, Multan, Marwar, Delhi and Sindh. The control of this area seemed to have passed from one group to another and at the time of establishment of Bikaner. Johyas, Chauhans, Sankhlas, Parmars, Bhatis, Bhattis, Khichis, Chayals, Kyamkhanis and Jats were dominant groups and controlled large portions of this arid region.⁴⁹ Several of these groups had accepted Islam but still seemed to maintain old associations, even continuing to enter into matrimonial alliances with their Hindu counterparts. In the 15th century, towards north and west of Janglu, Bhatis were still very strong and controlled all major forts including Pugal and Bhatner.⁵⁰ Jats in this region saw Bika as a possible buffer between them and the Bhatis. Bika is believed to have intervened in ongoing disputes between Saran, Godara and Punia Jats, and eventually subjugated all of them. Nainsi describes Bika’s role in a dispute between Godaras and Sarans as follows, The Saharans said, we will not be able to win, as Bikaji backs the Godaras. The Jats of Bhadang went to Narsinghdas Jatu, who brought his forces. When one hundred and forty Godaras were killed, they approached Bikaji, and told him that your Jats are being killed by Narsinghdas. At midnight half of the Jats of Bhadang approached Bikaji and told him that we will help you kill Narsinghdas. They took him to where Narsinghdas was asleep and Bikaji killed him. The Jat forces, fled, and Bikaji took all their cattle. Bikaji also killed Sonhar Jat at Harani Kheda.⁵¹

quotation

p. 28
A part of this desert was also addressed as ‘Jangal’, ‘Jangal Des’ or ‘Jangalu’ referring to the arid wilderness of the region. Contrasted with the neighbouring fertile plains of the Punjab rivers and the Indus, rich loamy lands of Gujarat and the thickly forested plateau of Malwa, its aridity renders a singularity to its character, that of a desert.
pp. 77–78
The kingdom of Bikaner was established in 1465, in the area that was traditionally known as Janglu.⁴⁸ The fort-city of Bikaner was founded in 1488, in a place that was strategically located on a route that connected Punjab, Multan, Marwar, Delhi and Sindh. The control of this area seemed to have passed from one group to another and at the time of establishment of Bikaner. Johyas, Chauhans, Sankhlas, Parmars, Bhatis, Bhattis, Khichis, Chayals, Kyamkhanis and Jats were dominant groups and controlled large portions of this arid region.⁴⁹ Several of these groups had accepted Islam but still seemed to maintain old associations, even continuing to enter into matrimonial alliances with their Hindu counterparts. In the 15th century, towards north and west of Janglu, Bhatis were still very strong and controlled all major forts including Pugal and Bhatner.⁵⁰ Jats in this region saw Bika as a possible buffer between them and the Bhatis. Bika is believed to have intervened in ongoing disputes between Saran, Godara and Punia Jats, and eventually subjugated all of them. Nainsi describes Bika’s role in a dispute between Godaras and Sarans as follows,
The Saharans said, we will not be able to win, as Bikaji backs the Godaras. The Jats of Bhadang went to Narsinghdas Jatu, who brought his forces. When one hundred and forty Godaras were killed, they approached Bikaji, and told him that your Jats are being killed by Narsinghdas. At midnight half of the Jats of Bhadang approached Bikaji and told him that we will help you kill Narsinghdas. They took him to where Narsinghdas was asleep and Bikaji killed him. The Jat forces, fled, and Bikaji took all their cattle. Bikaji also killed Sonhar Jat at Harani Kheda.⁵¹

Its page nos. 57 and 76 also contain some relevant details about it, but I am not quoting them due to copyright issues. Note that I have just glanced through some pages of the above source, rather than reading them. And I am only posting here to show that this is not a hoax. So this needs a second look. But I guess we do need some coverage in other scholarly sources for meeting WP:GNG. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree with NitinMlk. As I already mentioned Jangladesh was real name of the region and it is no hoax. Rathores of Bikaner did subdue Jats of the area and took control of this region. The Bikaner Kingdom even in later times was called Jangal desh. As pointed out by @NitinMlk, there is problem of different spellings, in my opinion more common spelling is Jangal desh or Jangaldesh and not Jangladesh. Quick google book search for Jangal desh and Jangaldesh not Jangladesh gives quite a number of books mentioning it in relation with historical region. If I remember correctly, the rulers of Bikaner till later times were called Jangal dhar Badshah i.e. Lord of Jangaldesh. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it is not a hoax: was too confident to bother rechecking Kothiyal. That being said, GNG is not met: there is nothing to write apart from that in bardic chronicles, Rajasthan (or rather, a part of it) is frequently mentioned as Jangaldesh. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, only a particular north-western region of Rajasthan (rather than the whole of it) is historically known by this name. A quick search at Google Books shows that this academic source also has some details about it. But I don't have access to it. Anyway, you are way better than me at searching sources. So please do have a look at them if you get some time. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get time to look at the Google books search results, but I have just looked at the other sources cited in the article. One of them contains a chapter authored by Dr. Jibraeil, who was an assistant professor of history at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU): [10]. His research was focused on Rajasthan and the revised version of his thesis was published by Routledge in 2018: [11]. So I guess his cited chapter seems fine with in-text attribution. I will check its content in a day or two. Note that he was one of the multiple AMU faculty members who died this year due to COVID-19: see [12], [13], [14], etc.

Sajaypal007, the article's title is not an issue, as the page can be moved to Jangal desh if that's its WP:COMMONNAME. This region is mentioned in many Rajasthan-related articles. So a short and well-sourced article would be helpful. But at the same time, we need inputs from someone who is well-versed in Rajasthan's history of that era. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, I consider myself as having good grasp on Rajasthan History, did my graduation and PG in it. As I looked at more and more sources, I kind of think that my vote for deletion was made in haste, although I did mention that the region is mentioned as such in history books. Can I change my vote from delete to merely a comment, with more inputs I can make better decision. Although I am little busy for next couple of weeks, I will atleast list as many sources I can find on this below. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3-4 sources on Jangladesh page alongwith quotes, copy pasting those here, Jangal Desh^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Dr Dasharatha Sharma was a famous historian from Rajasthan. Rima Hooja is also archaeologist turned Historian. Karni Singh was former Maharaja of Bikaner i.e. the same region which was called Jangal desh and he also studied history from Delhi University. K.R. Qanungo was also a historian and wrote many books. Here 1 another famous historian of Rajasthan G.N.Sharma mentioned Jangaldesh in his map. Another historian Ram Vallabh Somani 2 in his book Prithvi raj and his times mention the region of Jangal desh. If time permits, I will add more sources that mention the region. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered, the famous Chirwa inscription of Guhilot prince Samarsimha, states that Jaitrasimha's (his grandfather) pride could not be curbed by rulers of Malwa, Gujarat, Maru and Jangala. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sajaypal007, the WP:!VOTE can be changed whenever you want, and the AfD can be relisted if you need some more time. But I am not familiar with Rajasthan's history of that era. BTW, Jibraeil's chapter does have relevant details, which I will hopefully quote here tomorrow. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the title indicates, Jibraeil's chapter is about the Churu region, rather than Jangaldesh, although Churu was part of Jangaldesh. Anyway, here's a relevant quote from the book:

Jibraeil (2006). "Position of Jats in Churu Region". In Singh, Vir (ed.). Jats: Their Role and Contribution to the Socio-Economic Life and Polity of North and North-Western India. Vol. 2 (1st ed.). Originals. pp. 222–223. ISBN 978-81-88629-51-0.

quotation
After Chauhans, Jats completely established their supremacy and hold over administration in their own traditional fashion, which continued till the conquest of the region by the Rathors.²³ The Jats claimed their right over the land which was under their possession before the Rathors occupied it and this claim was inherited by their descedants, who used to divide the land among themselves for cultivation. It appears probable that in the early period of their conquest the Rathors could not exercise any definite claim on the land as landlords. However, it was possible only in the 17th century,²⁴ due to internal rivalries among the Jats, primarily Godaras surrendered, later on all the Jat clans accepted Rathor's suzerainty.²⁵ After this, the rulers had strengthened their position and tightened their grip over the area.²⁶ When Rathors led an expedition into the region of dry land also known as Jangal Pradesh, which was occupied by the Jats and various tribes, the Bhatis and Jats of the region wanted to secure their position, they measured sworded with him and fought bravely against them, but finally defeated and accepted Rathor suzerainty.²⁷

quotation

After Chauhans, Jats completely established their supremacy and hold over administration in their own traditional fashion, which continued till the conquest of the region by the Rathors.²³ The Jats claimed their right over the land which was under their possession before the Rathors occupied it and this claim was inherited by their descedants, who used to divide the land among themselves for cultivation. It appears probable that in the early period of their conquest the Rathors could not exercise any definite claim on the land as landlords. However, it was possible only in the 17th century,²⁴ due to internal rivalries among the Jats, primarily Godaras surrendered, later on all the Jat clans accepted Rathor's suzerainty.²⁵ After this, the rulers had strengthened their position and tightened their grip over the area.²⁶
When Rathors led an expedition into the region of dry land also known as Jangal Pradesh, which was occupied by the Jats and various tribes, the Bhatis and Jats of the region wanted to secure their position, they measured sworded with him and fought bravely against them, but finally defeated and accepted Rathor suzerainty.²⁷

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Churu and Bikaner were both part of Kingdom of Bikaner, Rathores since Rao Bika ruled over this part. So historically Churu is also considered as part of Jangal Pradesh. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, Jangaldesh used to be the old name of a particular region in Rajasthan which was ruled by Jats, before felling to Bika. We know nothing except this. So, why not merge to History of Rajasthan? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TrangaBellam. The term is very sparsely cited and, at best, deserves a mention somewhere. Not an article of its own. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Qanungo, Kalika Ranjan; Kānūnago, Kālikā Rañjana (1960). Studies in Rajput History. S. Chand. p. 60. whereas the Jats lived in the Jangal-desh (a portion of ancient Kuru-Jangal region), which covers Bikanir and some portion of the Jodhpur State.
^ Singh, Karni (1974). The Relations of the House of Bikaner with the Central Powers, 1465-1949. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-8364-0457-9. "The old name of the territories which went to constitute the Rathore principality of Bikaner, had been 'Jangal Desh'.((cite book)): CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Hooja, Rima (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rupa & Company. p. 6. ISBN 978-81-291-0890-6. In a different context, a part of the desert land now part of the administrative division of Bikaner was apparently known as 'Jangal' (also 'Jangal-desh).((cite book)): CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Sharma, Dasharatha (1966). Rajasthan Through the Ages: From the earliest times to 1316 A.D. Bikaner. pp. 287–288. There is good reason to believe that parts of the present north-eastern and north-western Rajasthan were inhabited by Jat clans ruled by their own chiefs and largely governed by their own customary law.((cite book)): CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Comment -- I believe that "desh" means something like province. I do not know the distinction between it and pradesh (also province). However differences of name according to whether these words are added to the name Jangla and variations in the vowels (due to differences in transliteration and not significant. The footnotes seem to have quotations using the name, so that it seems to be real. On the otehtr hand I would caution against the expansion of this article beyond its current length. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I came upon this debate when patrolling Special:PendingChanges and, frankly, I don't know. But if one looks at the Bikaner article's cited sources, this [[15]] seems to make it clear that Jangladesh, at a minimum, is not a hoax and has some support from quasi-official Indian sources. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the source from the article. Rajasthan tourism is not WP:RS. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:03, 8 January 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. For now, per Qwaiiplayer: This dab page's existence depends on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiCast (cellular networking). Sandstein 19:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MobiCast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a disambiguation page for two pages for two different topics which had been agglomerated into a single page. Neither topic appeared, in itself, notable. After discussion with Kvng, I split the two topics each into their own independent page, added hatnotes, changed the main page to a disambiguation page, nominated the two new pages for PROD, and this one for AfD (2nd). This whole process was complicated somewhat by vandalism halfway through. If one of the two independent pages survives PROD for some reason, it can be brought back into this page. Otherwise, as seems most likely, all three should go. Bill Woodcock (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, while both those pages exist. Have reformatted the dab page per WP:MOSDAB. PamD 08:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we should put this AfD on hold for a few days to see if anyone contests the proposed deletion of the two articles it references. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed. We'll know in thirty-three hours. Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested. Now we need to wait for the AfD to complete. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added the Microsoft Research Mobicast project to this disambiguation page (which doesn’t have its own article at present). (‘Mobicast’ is such a generic name that the disambiguation page should probably remain even if some of the linked articles didn’t exist.) WP:TIND Jim Grisham (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: since this page contains a non-trivial edit history, it should probably be re-named to one of the child pages, with a brand new re-direct page then created in its place using the existing contents, right? Jim Grisham (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The plan was to delete all three, since nobody has suggested that any of them describe anything notable, but if you want to have a disambiguation page distinguishing three non-notable things which were proposed by someone once, and never became real... I guess? I'm not sure I see the point, but I wouldn't argue with you. Bill Woodcock (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (procedural) If either of the linked pages gets deleted then this page can be speedy deleted with WP:G14. In the (unlikely) case that both are kept, then this page can be kept as a legitimate DAB page. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:00, 12 January 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 11:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of soccer stampede disasters[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork from List of human stampedes and crushes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless content fork. If kept, soccer should be replaced by association football in the article title, as we don't need to default to US terminology. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed. Giant Snowman 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs to be seen as non longer incomplete but the list is notable and provides a good reference list for the subject in question. Rillington (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Question: is there any concern about WP:SIZE for List of human stampedes and crushes? I don't think football/soccer would necessary require its own page, but maybe sports stampedes could be independently notable? Jay eyem (talk) 23:46, 4 January 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. After being relisted twice, it does not appear that there is clear consensus in either direction. There is certainly good recent coverage of the topic, and it is too early to tell whether there will be lasting coverage. I am closing this for now and noting that in the future the article may be nominated again for deletion and re-evaluated in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth hunger strike for democracy[edit]

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

Local/regional news story shows no signs of lasting coverage. This defies WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and would be better suited for a single line on the Kyrsten Sinema page. It also seems like the page was created by (Redacted). Wikipedia is not a blog or online portfolio for any would-be journalists or activists. KidAd • SPEAK 02:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More than 40 people from all over the country participated in the hunger strike that lasted for 15 days. The hunger strikers were on MSNBC and ABC News multiple times. They were covered in depth by Mother Jones, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Salon, The Guardian, and many other national papers. Please check out the links to the articles and TV interviews. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Draftify for not more than six months, at which point notability should be reconsidered: I'm not seeing evidence of the protest's impact. Just getting themselves a meeting with a senator is not enough. This is too soon for an article—if the protest carries some lasting significance, it can be moved back (in a much more neutral tone and article title). If this is kept in any form (including draftification), its title should be changed to "2021 Arizona hunger strike" or something of the like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name of the article has been changed. The definition of "notability" for wikipedia article is that there're multiple reputable sources referring to the event. This event has been reported on national TV, newspapers and magazines. There are at least 40 original reports and coverage on this event nationally. Regarding the impact, 40 people were willing to sacrifice their health and stop eating for days on - how often does this occur? btw, I'm requesting a global name change as the original requester of deletion was using my personal info as part of the reason for their recommendation (which is very improper, FWIW). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the other hand, we have non-draft articles like this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush_broccoli_comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the OP should not have cited your personal information. However, I don't appreciate you looking through my contributory history. The reason that George H. W. Bush broccoli comments exists in mainspace, and this article should not, is that the former article has demonstrated a lasting significance over time with respect to presidential health, campaign messaging, and the broccoli industry. The latter has not demonstrated that has had an effect on state policy, hunger strikes, or even prompted a national discussion of some kind. And that's because the protest ended yesterday. We have a guideline for this, it's WP:TOOSOON—I'd read that as well. This protest is unique, and interesting, but neither of those are mentioned in our guidelines for inclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean any disrespect by including “personal information” in my nomination rationale. I only did so because the page’s creator uses their given name as their username. And the photos uploaded on the page were uploaded by someone of the same name. Anyone can Google that name and find a semi-public person. I made the assumption that this page was designed to be an extension of a public figure’s journalism work. Per WP:OUTING, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Either way, I have redacted my mention of their name in the deletion rationale. KidAd • SPEAK 06:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for removing reference to my personal info. This article has nothing to do with me. In fact I didn't even know that readers could see my username so easily otherwise I'd have never used it (and have since requested a global user name change after I saw your comment). And the reason I used the photos I took is that I don't want to get into copyright issues. This article has everything to do with 20-40 kids who sacrificed their health (and risked their lives) to stand up for something that they really cared about. And they have made a difference! They had talked to dozens of Congressional folks since they were in DC. Three Texas House Representatives came to DC to support them because of voter suppression in Texas that can only be addressed by a federal law. Senator Merkley (who was the primary sponsor of the For the People Act) mentioned the kids on Twitter. Senator Kelly met with them. The Senators knew that they were there. The White House knew that they were there. Even though the Senate didn't pass the bill yet, Senate Majority Leader Schumer wrote yesterday that the democracy bills would be voted again in the first week when they return. They were on Washington Post, Mother Jones, MSNBC, ABC, Fox, The Guardian, The Politico, and more. They already *had an impact*, whether the bill will eventually pass or not. Also, someone changed the title to "Arizona hunger strike" which is incorrect. They only spent 5 days in Arizona, and 10 days in DC in front of the White House. At the end, half of the kids on hunger strike were not from Arizona. They came from all over the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.": well, in fact, I did not "post my own information or links to" my personal information. You googled my username, which isn't information that I voluntarily posted. Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe the WP:TOOSOON is applicable. Here is the description for WP:TOOSOON: "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon. Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." As I mentioned above, the hunger strike has been covered in over 40 original articles or TV interviews, some of them included in the reference list. They are verifiable, independent, and substantial coverages of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 08:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant WP:PERSISTENCE. To quote Leo McGarry, "in this day and age, these kids are phenomenal". But they would either need lasting coverage or a shown impact to qualify for inclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Impact: Right after the Senate dismissed the session, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made this statement: "Additionally, please be advised that shortly after the 117th Congress resumes in January, the Senate will consider voting rights legislation, as early as the first week back." and "If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster and prevent the body from considering this bill, the Senate will then consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation." It's difficult to prove impact, but the hunger strike definitely moved the needle in the right direction. Several Senators were tweeting about the hunger strike before they left DC. If the US Congress manages to pass the most significant voting reforms since the Civil Rights Movement (and even if they don't pass), we owe a debt of gratitude to these kids.

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ednör – L'Attaque[edit]

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

Referenced to a (dead) primary source and a news article that doesn't even seem to mention this roller coaster. Neither name gave particularly helpful search results, only more primary websites, fandom wikis, and https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/six-flags-astroworld-theme-park/, claiming the ride to be "notable" in a passing mention. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwreck Falls[edit]

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

Appears to be only referencing primary sources; no indication of notability. A web search only returned similar websites and fandom wikis, as well as passing mentions at https://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-trb-deja-vu-six-flags-new-england-08201119-story.html and https://www.abandonedspaces.com/parks/geauga-lake.html. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 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, withdrawn. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana AFL–CIO[edit]

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

~~Subsidiary organisation does not seem to meet WP:NORG- lacks coverage in independent WP:RS and notability is inherited from the parent organisation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you TartarTorte for finding the additional source. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article includes a list of presidents without inline citations. If we can source this list during the AfD, that would constitute content of encyclopediac signififance that would justify a keep or merge outcome to this AfD. If we can show the list is inaccurate, the raison d'etre of the content is threatened and I'd be inclined to delete. Otherwise, if we have apparently encyclopediac content of unknown accuracy, I'd prefer draftify or redirect to delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I added some more information about the history of the organization. It seems like the Indiana Federation of Labor, a direct precursor to the Indiana AFL–CIO is itself notable which we could just have be its own page also. TartarTorte 20:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the single ref added by TartarTorte: a single, 18 page reference would not normally put a NORG over the bar for me, but this clearl y indicates the union has a long and significant history. In all likelihood, there are more refs out there. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Thunder[edit]

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

Unsourced and no indication of notability. Can't find anything on this online, though that is partly caused by the fact that it was closed in 1983. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was a kiddie coaster that is described as having a height of nine feet and a drop of three feet. It's not the age that's the issue, it's that it is an utterly routine feature of many amusement parks, and was rather ordinary and non-notable when it existed. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Wave (Six Flags St. Louis)[edit]

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

Sourced exclusively to (dead) primary sources. A web search only returned similar websites, fandom wikis, as well as a passing mention of the ride's destruction at https://www.dailynews.com/2021/10/21/six-flags-magic-mountain-unveils-wonder-woman-single-rail-coaster-for-2022/. No indication of notability. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Road Runner Express (Six Flags Discovery Kingdom)[edit]

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

Unsourced. Searching for "Road Runner Express" + "Discovery Kingdom" (to avoid results relating to Road Runner Express (Six Flags Fiesta Texas)) only shows primary sources and fandom wikis. No indication of notability. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Old Roman Catholic Church[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:NCHURCH, and its lack of notability has been pointed out since 2016; I have found nothing on this denomination. The article has no reliable secondary source to support its notability.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, this appears to be a small group of people. They don't seem to have a physical building that would be considered a "church". PK T(alk) 13:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in the Encyclopedia of American Religions. St Anselm (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: Which version? It only has two WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the 2009 version I checked (p. 111 article 'Christ Catholic Church', and p. 128 article 'Old Catholic Church of North America'). Veverve (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1996 version. "Ontario+Old+Catholic"&dq="Ontario+Old+Catholic"&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY9JSyrJv1AhW2CTQIHeV1COwQ6AF6BAgHEAI In fact, it's reproduced on the church website. St Anselm (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: All the mentions of the Ontario Old Roman Catholic Church in the link you provided are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; and from what I get with a Google books search in the 1996 edition, all mentions of this denomination there seem to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Veverve (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two external websites refer to one parish and the other is a dead link - to a potential website host. As far as I can see, this is denomination consists of a single congregation, being a splinter from the wider Old Catholic church. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Duncan (motivational speaker)[edit]

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

Subject lacks independent significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The sources in the article are mainly press releases, or are about events in which Duncan was involved but not about Duncan directly. Those sources where Duncan is the main subject are too closely connected to him to be considered independent. Article reads like a CV or press release. I can't find independent coverage on the awards. The article is also an orphan with zero incoming wikilinks. 4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage about Duncan is not significant enough (mostly from very small local newspapers) to warrant him an article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:49, 7 January 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 Roosarna#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vad livet har att ge[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NALBUM. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roosarna, who were known as Kikki Danielsson & Roosarna at the time the album was released. I was able to find brief notices about this album in Swedish sources but they appear to be mostly promotional and directory-like. Speakers of that language may be able to find something better. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a redirect the album is found be non-notable. I didn't realize that Roosarna was once known as that. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing because Kikki Danielsson released several solo albums on her own, but she was a member of Roosarna on every single one of their albums. Even more confusingly, the Roosarna albums were released as Roosarna featuring Kikki Danielsson, then as Kikki & Roosarna, and then as Kikki Danielsson & Roosarna. Anyway, the album being discussed here is a Roosarna album with Kikki on it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep: I have found another source, with links still alive. J 1982 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: J 1982 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

J 1982 That is a reprint of the source that is in the article. It even has the same title and date. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Aftonbladet is still a stronger source. J 1982 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be one source. A reprint is not an entirely new source. We need multiple reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 02:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roosarna#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond the source presented by J. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin' Roller[edit]

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

Only sourced to a database entry. Couldn't find any significant coverage online either, except for some fandom wikis and ranking websites. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --The helper5667 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catwoman's Whip[edit]

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

All I could find online on this are various fandom wikis, internet fora and blogs, as well as some passing mentions in sources regarding Six Flags New England. Article itself is referenced to a rating website and a primary source. No evidence of notability. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 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 04:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino Horn (2016 film)[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Ladsgroup^overleg 00:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Please expand on why it doesn't meet GNG (and no, 'all the sources are in Persian I can't read it' isn't proper; one-click translation is a thing now). Nate • (chatter) 02:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf I am a native speaker of Persian language and can understand the sources, that's why I'm suggesting this to be deleted. It's pretty simple, none of these sources are reliable sources. Ladsgroup^overleg 06:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no assertion of notability here, insufficient coverage for notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, assuming good faith in the nom's translations and judgments regarding references. BD2412 T 02:13, 4 January 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 and no indication that another relist would provide one. Star Mississippi 16:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf W. Schnyder[edit]

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

WP:MEMORIAL written by WP:COI editor for non-notable businessman. This rambling article effectively says "man did job". Being CEO of a notable company does not make this individual notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. MIDI (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Appear to not meet GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people), basic search returned one source from Robb Report, won't be surprised if another RS was found Justi yaya 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several RS to article that demonstrate his notability. Article was created by "Ulysse-nardin", that seems to be in associated with the subject. Unsoursed context should be removed, but subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the sources are press releases or derived from press releases after his passing. We cannot use press releases or articles derived heavily from press releases, as they are not considered independent. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the simple reason there is almost no independent coverage of this person. After tracing down the sources of what little coverage there is, it appears to originate mostly from company press releases. Also, one obituary does not make a subject notable. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources cited in the page. There may be reliable sources on Google News, as I saw a few passing mentions only on articles about the company. Notability is not inherited. Any reliable, independent sources with SIGCOV must be added or the page is a delete. Multi7001 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the article about the company he was a CEO of. His contributions could be discussed there. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 00:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst the article as it stand is WP:PROMO, Schnyder is a WP:BASIC pass per this source, this source, this source, this source, and this source. The present state of referencing in the article doesn't matter per WP:NEXIST, WP:PROMO can be fixed through normal editing. The Financial Times reference particularly makes this an easy keep. FOARP (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep in mind that nearly all of those sources you shared came from the same press release, or press announcement on about the same date, and per WP:PRSOURCE "Press releases and articles written from press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the obituaries obviously contains independent reporting. The fact that they quote the press release as a statement from the company about his death does not mean that they are based on the press release. I mean Financial Times is about as high-quality as things get with sourcing so you're going to have a up-hill struggle to convince anyone that they sourced their obituary of Schnyder to a press release when it contains a bunch of stuff that clearly wasn't sourced to the company and aren't contained in the other articles about his death (e.g., the expansion in the former USSR and sales to a central Asian dictator, details about "The freak", Ludwig Oechslin's role etc. etc. etc.).

Additionally the final source (La Stampa) was from before his death, wasn't based on a press-release, so did you actually check all of the sources I included in my comment?

And this is all without even touching on the industry press (e.g., this), and society coverage (e.g., this and this). FOARP (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the independent coverage is still almost entirely based off the news of his death, and there does not appear to be much coverage during his life. I did look at the sources you shared. The La Stampa is just a couple of quotes from him about the business, according to my translation. Am I wrong? I don't think that's significant coverage of the man himself. But clearly a lot of this is subjective. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FT obituary is very clearly coverage of Schnyder's entire life. Ditto the industry press coverage. The Le Temps obituary does discuss his sporting career and rescue of the company so it's not just about his death. The Tropical Style book is by Tuttle Publishing (an established publishing house) and is also clearly significant coverage of Schnyder, and notably doesn't even mention the company. That coverage of his life happened primarily when he died does not negate the fact that this is coverage of his life - many notable people only receive their best coverage in obituaries or after they are dead. Even taking a narrow view of the period of time in which there was coverage of Schnyder, it appears to have gone on for months/years and did not simply occur in April 2011. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I've given the article a heavy edit to remove the PROMO garbage, reads better now I think. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re-reviewing the sources cited, the page is a very weak keep; a subject of very low significance in the industry. The page will require the removal of all unreliable sources cited. Multi7001 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 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.