< January 05 January 07 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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) 23:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fedsurrection[edit]

Fedsurrection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New term lacking sourced specific definition not likely to "stick". Meatsgains(talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 23:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smith, Gambrell & Russell[edit]

Smith, Gambrell & Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline G11 eligible article that has been created multiple times on a law firm organization that fails to meet WP:NORG, invariably WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. A before search showed me hits in primary sources, directories and other user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philip Hughes (footballer, born 1981)[edit]

Philip Hughes (footballer, born 1981) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage to indicate this player passes GNG. As he's never played in a fully professional league, he doesn't meet NFOOTY either. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While not exactly bowled over, I would err towards a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tiku Weds Sheru[edit]

Tiku Weds Sheru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable subject. Draft Already exist. Blackfishes (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignore the weird draft comment - does this meet WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See prior relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Lack of participation after multiple relists. The nominator's own neutral stance makes even a soft deletion seem inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video Volunteers[edit]

Video Volunteers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've declined a WP:G11 request as I'm not convinced this is purely advertising. However, this certainly isn't appropriate for Wikipedia in its current state, and I'm not convinced it's salvageable. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. (Note that there's some highly questionable BLP content in here. Normally I'd remove it, but in this case I'll leave it in situ during the AfD as it could theoretically impact on the notability of the topic.)  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Even weighing in Tratshin's edits during the discussion, consensus is Jessup is not notable. Star Mississippi 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher Jessup (musical artist)[edit]

Christopher Jessup (musical artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. I only see one article with WP:SIGCOV, an article from the Darien Times (circulation: 6,454) from 2011. The rest is a bunch of non-notable awards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment You've done a nice job cleaning it up, but I don't see any improvements to the notability issue. The NYT and Santa Barbara Independent sources don't mention Jessup. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daisy Lovelace[edit]

Daisy Lovelace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is essentially a typed-out CV for an instructor at LinkedIn Learning. Its sourcing is non-independent and contains a good deal from LinkedIn itself. Her academic career is not distinguished enough to meet any of the criteria at WP:NPROF. I have not found any substantial reliable coverage that would point towards her meeting WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohamed Sherif Kamel[edit]

Mohamed Sherif Kamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources only have fleeting reference to his name. Fails WP:NBASIC rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's definitely something fishy going on one of the editors of the article is Mohamedkamelerc and it was created by Lotayef, with the reverse happening at Ehab Lotayef, User:Mohamedkamelerc creating it and Lotayef editing it. Making SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment Article creator blocked for socking with Mohamedkamelerc. Make of that what you will. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari[edit]

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not proven to pass WP:NPROF, draftified once already. Were I to draftfy it again that would be move warring, hence AfD.

Associate professors are unlikely to meet the notability criteria FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I notice 146 citations for Motivational predictors of change in oral health at [2] Is that enough? Vexations (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vexations the usual expert I turn to in matters such as this is DGG. I have asked them for an unbiased assessment. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USS LSM-110[edit]

USS LSM-110 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill ship, just like lots of military equipment used consecutively by a few countries, but nothing remarkable. The awards are generic ones, given for "being there", and the sources are not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Some unaccepted military essay tries to claim that all commissioned ships are notable, but this is not an accepted (or acceptable) guideline. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Landing Ship Medium. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale. Sandstein 11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USS LSM-316[edit]

USS LSM-316 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any actual notability (meeting some very liberal, unaccepted essay isn't sufficient). Awards are meaningless as they were distributed by the thousands for "being there", nothing more. Sources are not independent or not reliable and indepth. A run of the mill ship which had nothing remarkable in its career. Military equipment being sold from one country to another happens literally all the time. Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government reports are not independent sources and do nothing to establish notability. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fahrettin Güneş[edit]

Fahrettin Güneş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Took part and placed poorly in a regional song competition. Prior and later work does not meet WP:SINGER. Grk1011 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ron Mustafaa[edit]

Ron Mustafaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Non-active actor with only one significant role (as a character in the US adaptation of Skins) and very little to no significant coverage. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next Turkvision Song Contest[edit]

Next Turkvision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Until last week, this page was at Turkvision Song Contest 2021 and it was changed to "next" as the contest didn't happen. What's more is that it just didn't happen: no information even stating that it was canceled. This is now an awkward placeholder article that is artificially pushing the contest back to some unknown time. All sources included refer to the 2021 contest that did not materialize. The recent updates about the next edition and 2022 are unsourced. Suggest deleting per WP:CRYSTAL. Grk1011 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Yes deletes this article, please. I have unnamed this page for the future. I'm sure the competition will take place again sometime. I do not mind if the page is deleted . Ramona Schuck (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - agreed, no reason to continue to host this as it's not even confirmed when, or even if, there will be a future contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Landing Ship Medium. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale. Sandstein 11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USS LSM-479[edit]

USS LSM-479 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Deprodded on the basis of an unaccepted essay, but similar ships have already been deleted at AfD because there isn't the necessary sourcing available to actually meet the WP:GNG. Awards are generic ones, not given for any specific reason to this ship individually: and sources are either not independent or not significant. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Does listing the characteristics of the ship constitute significant coverage? Are uboat.net, navsource.org reliable sources? WP:ILIKEIT and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Pilaz (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can you please point out which sources make this article pass WP:GNG? I mean the nominator stated "sources are either not independent or not significant." and you are in a sense saying "yes they are". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Osland[edit]

Per Osland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very short article with no references, doesn't demonstrate notability. Not to say that this person isn't notable, they very well could be, but it it's current state this article doesn't demonstrate that DirkJandeGeer (щи) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olimpia Smajlaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Olimpia Smajlaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved from draft twice avoiding reviews, so bringing here, fails WP:SINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering[edit]

Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first two sources in the article are by the creator of this theory, and the third source[6] doesn't seem to mention Aminoff at all. This definition seems to be only used in publications by Aminoff [7]. Google Scholar reinforces the image that this definition has not been picked up by many others[8]. The other articles around this editor (Aminoff Suffering Syndrome and Bechor Zvi Aminoff) need some care for puffery and so on as well, but these at least seem to have some notability. Fram (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Article speedily deleted before the AfD completed its course. (non-admin closure) — kashmīrī TALK 18:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heer & Ranjha (2021)[edit]

Heer & Ranjha (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOKS. Just another book on the subject. No meaningful reviews available online. Article written in poor English by a new account with few edits outside of this article. IMDb has also been spammed, not only Wikipedia: [9]. — kashmīrī TALK 13:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. There's a fair amount of skepticism about some of the sources, but the overall sentiment of the discussion is that there is enough acceptable sourcing to keep the article. RL0919 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Juglans regia 'Zijing'[edit]

Juglans regia 'Zijing' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Ganbaruby's analysis on the talk page, this appears to be a non-notable walnut cultivar. Sources are largely of dubious reliability, database listings, and there's also citation stuffing where unrelated sources have "紫京" (the cultivar name) appended to make it appear to be related. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "紫色核桃树，绿化怎么用？". China Flower News. Retrieved 2022-01-04 – via Soha.
  • "北京国际核桃庄园成功研发紫京彩叶核桃树-千龙网·中国首都网". China Internet Information Center. Retrieved 2022-01-04 – via qianlong.com.
Jumpytoo Talk 01:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also found this article:
Jumpytoo Talk 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally to add, I was also able to fix the link for the BTV source, however the video player gets stuck at a loading state for me. But the description & title seem to suggest WP:SIGCOV. Maybe someone else can try and see if it works for them? Jumpytoo Talk 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jumpytoo: Thanks for the hard work looking for sources. I'm hesitant to use a source reposted on Sohu by a random person, and the video doesn't work for me either, but the other two look good to me, assuming that they're reliable sources. That brings us to basically three sources, but all read a bit promo-ey and raises questions about whether they're written independent of the subject, so I'm going to say weak keep. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to further evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I oppose a merge because there is substantial coverage of Juglans regia Zijing in the sources. The Eastday [zh] article in particular is very extensive: When translated into English in Google Translate, the article is 3,270 words. There is more than enough information to support a standalone article. Thank you, Jumpytoo (talk · contribs), for your work cleaning up the article and finding more sources. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timberloch Tower[edit]

Timberloch Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, only real coverage is of its demolition in 2017. Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angela Martin (priest)[edit]

Angela Martin (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability found. Despite the recentness and this happening in England, this got no coverage in independent sources[10][11]. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virtual fixture[edit]

Virtual fixture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was likely created as part of a COI campaign by Louis B. Rosenberg. Every source is authored by Rosenberg, pretty much nobody else is talking about it. BrigadierG (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Noer: Forbes Yes Yes No Only about force-feedback joysticks and patent issues; not about virtual fixtures ✘ No
Marayong et al; IEEE Yes Yes Yes Uses virtual fixtures for a study; however, this is a conference paper ✔ Yes
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)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mihelj, Matjaž; Podobnik, Janez (2012). "Virtual Fixtures". Haptics for Virtual Reality and Teleoperation. Springer Netherlands. pp. 179–199. ISBN 9789400757189.
  2. ^ Li, Ming; Kapoor, Ankur; Taylor, Russell (2007). "Telerobotic Control by Virtual Fixtures for Surgical Applications". Advances in Telerobotics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 380–401. ISBN 9783540713647.
  3. ^ Zheng, Bin; Kuang, Alex; Henigman, Frank; Payandeh, Shahram; Lomax, Alan; Swanstrom, Lee; MacKenzie, Christine (2006). "Effects of Assembling Virtual Fixtures on Learning a Navigation Task". Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 14. IOS Press. pp. 586–590. ISBN 9781586035839.
  4. ^ Abbott, Jake; Marayong, Panadda; Okamura, Allison (2007). "Haptic Virtual Fixtures for Robot-Assisted Manipulation". Robotics Research; Results of the 12th International Symposium ISRR. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 49–64. ISBN 9783540481133.
  5. ^ T Beyl; P Nicolai; H Monnich; J Raczkowksy; H Worn (2012). "Haptic Feedback in OP:Sense - Augmented Reality in Telemanipulated Robotic Surgery". Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 19. IOS Press. pp. 58–63. ISBN 9781614990215.
  6. ^ Antonia Pérez Arias (2014). Haptic Guidance for Extended Range Telepresence. KIT Scientific Publishing. pp. 16–19. ISBN 9783731500353.
  7. ^ G Lefemine; G Pedrini; C Secchi; F Tesauri; S Marzani. "Virtual Fixtures for Secondary Tasks". Human-Computer Interaction Symposium. Springer. pp. 67–81.
  8. ^ Hager, Gregory (2010). "Human-machine Cooperative Manipulation with Vision-based Motion Constraints". Visual Servoing Via Advanced Numerical Methods. Springer London. pp. 55–70. ISBN 9781849960892.
  9. ^ Lu, Xiaomin; Zhang, Ping; Du, Guanglong (2013). "Spatial motion constraints using flexible virtual fixtures". Applied Mechanics and Materials. 427–429: 24–28. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.427-429.24.
  10. ^ Dewan, Maneesh; Marayong, Panadda; Okamura, Allison; Hager, Gregory (2011). "Vision-based assistance for ophthalmic micro-surgery". Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention -- MICCAI 2004. Physica-Verlag. pp. 50–57. ISBN 9783540301363.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Er Rahad. ✗plicit 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ar Rahad[edit]

Ar Rahad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the same topic as the better-written Er Rahad. The coordinates are the exact same, they are located in the same province (North Kurdufan); etc. I believe this is a duplicate article. Dunutubble (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhoemetalces Philocaesar[edit]

Rhoemetalces Philocaesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speculative and WP:OR-ish article that appears to fail WP:V. The single source that actually mentions the subject does little more than give a transcription of a damaged inscription with the name, and does not conclusively identify the man. A high-profile person of this name did exist, but basically everything said here is uncertain, put together through WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No information exists on this man's life or accomplishments, aside from the name itself which appears in a damaged inscription somewhere. Avilich (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, we don't know who his father actually was, and the idea that we do is the article creator's original research/synth. I already fixed the notices on the king's article, but there's nothing from here that can be merged. Avilich (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by admin per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diller Dunyasi language center[edit]

Diller Dunyasi language center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see what makes this language centre notable. Sparse sourcing on them exists, though it does exist according to [17] and their twitter though their website is dead. Mvqr (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideal ring bundle[edit]

Ideal ring bundle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded twice due to lack of notability and WP:DICDEF/WP:HOWTO-level content. Fails WP:GNG according to Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) and the anonymous first prodder, since all Google Scholar hits are co-authored by one V. Riznyk. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 11:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike Tannura[edit]

Mike Tannura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I looked through the links on the notability find sources thing, and found one passing mention in a Guardian article, a few passing mentions in Google Books as far as I could tell, none from the newspapers link, none from JSTOR, and some papers he wrote in Google Scholar. I'm not too used to this area, but it seems like an article that does not have enough secondary sources to include on Wikipedia. The two sources in the article appear to be primary. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 08:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life in Frames[edit]

Life in Frames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article about this recent album is among several WP:SPA-authored articles about a young musician and his recordings. The two sources in the article were also the main references in the now-deleted biographical article about Chokamkuru Langneh: see the assessments of these sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chokamkuru Langneh. I don't see these sources or any other coverage as providing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: There is another leftover article for the musician at You Wouldn't Know (Chokamkuru Langneh song), which I shall nominate for speedy deletion. There may be a problem because that article (and the album article) make claims of notability, no matter how unsupported they may be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That song article has now been speedy deleted with support from WP:A9, and more speedily than I expected, so the same can be done for this album article ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Neo-corelight (Talk) 03:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk (film)[edit]

Talk (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The additions by Duffbeerforme do seem to show that the film indeed is notable. Withdrawing my nomination. --RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayanta Narayan Choudhury[edit]

Jayanta Narayan Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. available references do not claim the notability of the subject. Creator removed notability tag. fails WP:GNG DFXYME (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being an IPS doen't mean subject passes Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. DFXYME (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should get some knowledge about ADG, DG of IB, NSG etc. --Arunudoy (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear friend, I have enough knowledge of all ranks in police job. You should focus on the significant coverage. We are here on Wikipedia not for fight with each other, we should follow it's guidelines strictly. DFXYME (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you have seen this too-> https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jayanta+Narayan+Choudhury%22+-wikipedia --Arunudoy (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khazar University Department of Political Science and International Relations[edit]

Khazar University Department of Political Science and International Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, very Advertisement-like, and it seems fairly pointless to have an article on a single department of a fairly minor university. Yes sure, Harvard has articles on its departments, but Harvard is Harvard, and this is not Harvard. The article relies entirely on sources from the university itself. If anything of this article is to remain, it should be merged into the main article on the university. Anything useful from this article was already merged into the main article by Dr.Wiki54. This is also an unlikely redirect, so that wouldn't be suitable either, and redirecting also runs the risk of what happened last time it was redirected, simply having the redirection reverted. Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 10:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC) edited 10:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Landing Ship Medium. I am concurrently closing the AfDs for LSM-422, LSM-479 and LSM-316 because the subjects, the AfD participants and the arguments are essentially the same.

The "keep" arguments are particularly weak in the light of applicable guidelines and must be discounted. They assert that all commissioned warships are notable, and make reference to WP:MILUNIT #4. But they overlook that MILUNIT is an essay, which by its own terms purports to reflect "consensus within the Military history WikiProject", that is, not consensus in the community at large. Moreover, MILUNIT explicitly refers to the community-accepted guideline WP:GNG, and says that subjects like warships are merely "likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion".

For these reasons, arguments to the effect that warships are inherently notable have no basis in documented community consensus and must be disregarded. The arguments for deletion (failure to comply with WP:GNG) are not seriously contested. But many arguments are made that redirection to the ship type page, Landing Ship Medium, is an appropriate alternative to deletion. These arguments, in turn, are not contested by the "keep" or "delete" side, who are mainly concerned with the notability of the individual ships. Accordingly I am of the view that redirection is the most consensual outcome of this discussion. Sandstein 11:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USS LSM-422[edit]


USS LSM-422 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The awards are generic ones, handed out by the thousands, and were not awarded especially to this ship. That a military ship was used in military actions is not a claim to notability, nor that it was used by different countries (or else many thousands of military airplanes would be notable as well I suppose?). The sources are either not independent, or not reliable (like the mypaper.pchome.com blog, or the postenavalemilitaire forum), or not really indepth. Nothing remarkable about this and many hundreds similar ships. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This doesn't really answer the nominator's concerns as your statement is a bit too broad. What sourcing in particular do you consider to be solid? If the ship has served in four navies can you find additional sourcing? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "keep" votes as I said above appear to be broadly citing this essay without giving examples on how it applies. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is also not a solid basis to make an argument on as we need to know what sources exactly are "solid enough". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of My Big Fat Greek Wedding characters[edit]

List of My Big Fat Greek Wedding characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. If there is usable content, it belongs in the film's article. Paradoctor (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: Tagging Popoki35 who originally PRODed the page. TartarTorte 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) 08:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DJ Qian[edit]

DJ Qian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SOAP. Almost all sources are poor press releases or just irrelevant. Cryptocurrency-related. 虹易 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 12:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hu Jiaqi[edit]

Hu Jiaqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SOAP Most sources are just press releases or irrelevant (WP:CITEBOMB). Created by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/123Aristotle. See also the relevant: Save_Human_Action_Organization. 虹易 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since no one has participated in the discussion yet and it seems not to be worth discussing much, I request a G5 instead.--虹易 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sockpuppet wasn't the only contributor to the article so I have removed the CSD tag. Many articles are nominated in AfDs, you need to give this one more than two days. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AYM Syntex Limited[edit]

AYM Syntex Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not meet WP:ORGIND, topic is therefore not notable. ––FormalDude talk 04:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atul Auto[edit]

Atul Auto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not meet WP:ORGIND, topic is therefore not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources either. ––FormalDude talk 04:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ref Notes Significant Independent Reliable Secondary Result
Hindu Business Line Profile in-depth coverage with history, mkt share, products y y y WP:THEHINDU y pass
profile from Forbes India Forbes India is messy now, but this is from 2014, covers history, ops, previous failures y y y y pass
profile of CEO from Chitralekha (weekly) history from a regional perspective y y maybe maybe, author uncredited, promo/interview tones partial
News from Dainik Bhaskar covers their most famous product, its cultural impact y y maybe, author uncredited y partial
News from Sandesh coverage of same event as DB before y y maybe, author uncredited y partial
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 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan Steinberg[edit]

Dan Steinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable WP:JOURNALIST Yousef Raz (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four–Mod[edit]

Four–Mod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not be notable. Band claims to have multiple #1 hits, but according to WP:GOODCHARTS, Thailand does not have a reputable singles chart. Prod removed due to possibly worthwhile sources on Thai Wikipedia, but this does not guarantee the possibility of notability. If someone is able to translate the Thai sources and determine their credibility, then this might be salvageable Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khaosod newspaper source [20] but too bad it can only go back 2 years. Daily News (Thailand) newspaper source [21] - this site lacks tagging so have to rely on Google's site search, total 187 results found (some hits are unrelated to the band). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "PRESS DIGEST - Thai newspapers - Sept 25". Reuters. 25 September 2008. Police believe three suspects who admitted secretly filming singing duo Four-Mod taking a shower in a hotel are not telling the truth (BANGKOK POST)
  • Limited, Bangkok Post Public Company. "One-night reunion". Bangkok Post. When the popular pop duo Four Mod disbanded over conflicts in 2015, nobody expected they would reunite. But showbiz is always full of surprises. The organiser Archive BKK is bringing the former top duo back. (The article then continues.)
  • "Mod Napapat To Get Married To Her Boyfriend Soon". Thai Update. 25 March 2019. Mod Napapat, who is a former duo-singer Four-Mod, to get married to her boyfriend soon according to her mother's post on Instagram. (Though I find it difficult to assess whether this is a WP:RS.)
  • "หายใจเป็นโฟร์-มด". Four Fanclub (in Thai). (As a apparent fan site, fourfan.com itself seems not to be a WP:RS; but it is (infringingly) here copying an article from the Thai edition of Seventeen (American magazine), and coverage in Seventeen, as an RS to me supports notability.)
    • The add'l links at the footer of this article show add'l coverage in the Thai edition of Cosmopolitan (magazine), as well as in several what appear to be in-country magazines (Student Weekly, Spicy, ขวัญเรือน, Oops!, In magazine, Sweety and Love Love).
I doubt that much of the content above is worth putting into the article (and given that all of the articles on the Four Fanclub site are a) in Thai, so most of us won't understand them and b) are apparent copyvios that would violate WP:COPYLINK to link to anyway, referencing them would be difficult in any event); but they do indicate notability which is the question for AFD.
The article is indeed in dire need of clean-up, however. TJRC (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Star Mississippi 01:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anand Mishra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anand Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is just a district-level police officer. Every state of India has more than 250 SP-level officers. If created Wiki for a Superintendent of Police level officer, Wikipedia will be spammed. The sources are too local and for a Superintendent of Police, it's his duty to do whatever is mentioned in the article. Every Superintendent of Police does his job and such is published in the newspaper. Why Anand Mishra should be listed and not the more than 150 officers of the same rank or above? - Arunudoy (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angel Digital Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

Angel Digital Pvt. Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. ––FormalDude talk 03:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosalind Baker[edit]

Rosalind Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE reveals no reliable, independent sources documenting Rosalind Baker's (née Neville) notability. Article relies solely on websites from a connected company and links to her three published books. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of X-Men (TV series) video releases[edit]

List of X-Men (TV series) video releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIR. Sources are just directory listings. The video releases are not notable on their own, nor are the episodes contained therein Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Completely disagree; so many of these releases are just the first two-four episodes over and over again and would be finite fanon in that article. There's also fan snobbery in the article such as "Unfortunately, Buena Vista Home Entertainment decided to release the episodes on Volumes 3 & 4 in airdate order instead of the correct production order, no explanation has been given for releasing episodes in airdate order instead of production order" that shouldn't be anywhere near Wikipedia (again good lord, just use the list of episodes to order things the way you want to watch, it's not against the law to watch episode 12 followed by episode 37!). Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not saying it should be copied over verbatim - just that the existence of VHS releases should be mentioned. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Weakly. I don't see any evidence that an additional relist would attract additional participation or change the outcome. Star Mississippi 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin Reimann[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Martin Reimann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was already deleted once, in a version just different enough to not warrant speedy deletion. To repeat: non-notable academic, passes neither GNG nor NPROF, COI/promotional creation. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure you'll be aware of the supplementary information at WP:NPROF which refutes your argument: For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major well-established one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modussiccandi, yes, the vast majority of journal articles are reliable, only some are not, depending on retractions or refutations made by scholars. But in general, peer-reviewed journal articles cannot be used to establish notability about a subject because the subject themselves submit their own body of work for publicity and often get published with minimal oversight. In short, while most journal articles are reliable, they are neither independent or able to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we talking about two different things? My point was in support of Russ Woodroofe's discovery that this subject was the co-editor of a scientific journal. If you consult WP:NPROF, you'll see that editorship of a journal is one of the criteria that may make an academic notable. In the supplementary notes that I cited above, it says explicitly that the journal itself is all the proof needed for this criterion. In short: notability is established by the editorship of the journal with the journal itself as verification. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multi7001, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the subject meets WP:BASIC. The question is whether he meets WP:NPROF, which is an independent notability guideline. Being editor-in-chief of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area is Criteria 8 of NPROF, which specifically says that publications of the journal or its publisher are reliable for determining who has held this position. Now, the journal has been picked up by the APA as publisher, which does suggest it is major. Reasonable people could differ on whether a journal started in 2008 is well-established, and as to whether it is still a little WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modussiccandi and Russ Woodroofe, what you both are referring to involves subjects who are at the highest capacity of a notable academic journal. Generally, subjects who are editor-in-chiefs or founders of reputable journals tend to have organic mass media coverage just from obtaining such a role. I don't believe just being a co-editor of a journal is sufficient notability for its own page in the articlespace, however. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe criterion 8 is based on a different idea: mass media coverage is non-existent in most disciplines. In my own discipline, even the editors of the most prestigious journals have no coverage whatsoever in mainstream media. In fact, NPROF tries to address this very lack of mass media coverage. (This point is explained by the introductory section of NPROF.) Academic impact can be measured in different ways and the editorship of a good journal is one of them. So it seems that you are trying to bring this discussion back to the coverage-based WP:GNG, which circumvents the application of NPROF. In short, I feel you're questioning the validity of NPROF as a gauge for notability, for which an RfC would be a more suitable venue. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Russ Woodroofe, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. It looks like all users in favor of the page are actually making a case of notability for the journal that the subject co-edits and not the co-editor itself. From many pages of this sort that I've looked at, notability looks like this: A subject with at least one or two mass media articles; or award coverage in their academic journal or by their affiliated university or academic institution; or mentions in other journal articles independent of the subject's byline as an author in it. In my opinion, the co-editor should be merged into the page of the academic journal with its own subsection for the time being. Multi7001 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russ Woodroofe, while the APA inclusion of the journal is impressive, it only strengthens the case of notability for the journal itself and not the co-editor. Notability is not inherited. I am in agreement with you that it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multi7001, you appear to be disregarding WP:NPROF C8, even after having it pointed out to you. That guideline is clear that chief-editorship is indeed a pass of notability, provided the journal measures up to "major" and "well established." Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russ Woodroofe, I just checked WP:NPROF C8; it fails to meet any of those guidelines. First, the page states "Martin Reimann helped found," this does not necessarily mean the individual is an editor-in-chief or of any top capacity of the journal. The person may have contributed very minimally to the creation of the journal but received no credit due to minimal contribution. Second, the APA has the journal in its website as Samuel M. McClure as the editor of the journal. In the editorial board, there is no mention of the subject. There is almost no evidence from a reliable, independent source without a byline of the subject, that shows the subject is even directly affiliated with the journal. [23] The subtle passing mention of only the last name and first initial of the subject in reference three is not grounds for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Reimann was co-editor-in-chief appears to be well supported by sources: in addition to the "from the editors" piece in the opening issue, another source from when the APA took over publishing is [24]. He does not hold this position any longer, but held it for a non-trivial length of time (according to his CV 2007-2010, the journal sources support at least 2007-2009). Notability is not temporary. Again, WP:NPROF C8 specifically says that a source from the journal or from the publisher suffices. Note also that the NPROF guideline is an independent alternative to GNG (per the NPROF lede). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Sports in South Central Pennsylvania. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sports teams in the Central Pennsylvania Area[edit]

Sports teams in the Central Pennsylvania Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar, more developed page already exists (Sports in South Central Pennsylvania) Penndyl (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lilly Bollekens[edit]

Lilly Bollekens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that she received any significant coverage in non-database reliable sources. I found one newspaper article where one result is given (as "Mevr. Bollekens"), nothing else. Fram (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.
More