< July 04	July 06 >

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 sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 02:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Francis Murphy (actor)[edit]

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

No major roles or contributions. – Ploni (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Ohio. Ploni (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It appears that he comes up just short of NACTOR - some references and several roles on significant shows and movies, but they appear to be bit parts. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to save this article, but I can't contemplate where else additional information would come - it appears to be thorough as it is and it still comes up short. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many small roles but not enough to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. Frank Anchor 02:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A cursory PROQUEST search yielded some potential hits on reviews of his performances in publications like Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. I will get back here later this evening with more details.4meter4 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of possible new sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two quality theatre reviews in The New York Times of his performances in plays, and one quality film review of his performance in News of the World in the Los Angeles Times (see additions to the article). I think there is enough there to show he passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. I only stated weak keep as I couldn't find any coverage where he is the primary subject, other than this blog ([1]) which is probably not RS. There's likely other reviews out there as he has had some recurring roles in notable TV shows like The Walking Dead, and he has worked in theatre in cities other than New York.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 5 July 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. Star Mississippi 02:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pokerzone[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE found little to no sources on ProQuest and Newspapers.com. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable game channel.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 00:26, 13 July 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 12:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Groll[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Also unsourced with significant contributions from the subject (User:Jgvienna007). – Ploni (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is rather point-in-time, and misses much of the subject's later career, which includes co-writing a series called "Janus" (passing name coverage) and a TV film. I am not seeing the coverage needed for WP:CREATIVE criterion 3 though. AllyD (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Malzkuhn[edit]

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

Sent to Draft, banged right back into mainspace. Fails WP:GNG, sources presented are interview or non-RS such as Obama Foundation website, Forbes Sites. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been covered by reliable sources, including NPR, the Washington Post and PBS NewsHour. Vexations (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are either brief or tangential mentions. I also find coverage in Forbes and the PBS clip, but they're interviews. She's got some coverage, not enough for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of her work in multiple news articles. The article linked above for The Washington Post includes multiple paragraphs on Malzkuhn. The NPR story is also extensive coverage on Malzkuhn. Finally, her work The Baobab, a bilingual book was reviewed by an academic journal. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable in the general sense, but the mutiple review of her book that I saw on ProQuest give her a pass at WP:AUTHOR. I've added one more in, so the article passes as it stands. CT55555 (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per User:Oaktree b above, the mentions presented are ALL passing - and the book review quoted by User:CT55555 above is a review of an app, to which Malzkuhn is one of several contributors of short stories for children, it is not a review of HER book and there is no case for WP:NAUTHOR. While she is clearly an active advocate, there is no in-depth or significant coverage of her to indicate notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again. Quoting from the Journal of Education article "The Baobab and the VL2 storybook app series are designed and managed by Melissa Malzkukn" she's the only one mentioned in that sentence. Indeed, it's a book delivered digitally with American sign language. My reading is that someone signs the words. Obviously that can't be done in paper, it's done via a tablet or phone. The article refers to it as a book, because in many ways it is. In other ways, it is more than a book. I think this is not a reason to discount it, in fact it's quite spectacular in my opinion and should give her bonus points. WP:AUTHOR = WP:CREATIVE so I see no need discount an electronic book/app over a paper one. I don't agree that this is a passing mention. It's a proper review, 5 long paragraphs, and as per the WP:AUTHOR it's the subject of her work (the book/app) that needs to get significant coverage, not her. We're getting this here. So sorry, User:Alexandermcnabb, I just completely disagree with your characterisation of this and understanding of the guidelines.

The review I'm talking about is:

JIMÉNEZ, LAURA M. Review of BOOKS FOR YOUNG READERS, by MELISSA MALZKUHN, KRISTEN HARMON, BENJAMIN BAHAN, WANDA RIDDLE, YIQIAO WANG, APRIL JACKSON-WOODARD, JACQUELINE WOODSON, et al. The Journal of Education 196, no. 1 (2016): 53–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612608.

Another review of The Baobab (although it doesn't mention MM):

MURRAY, J. J. The Baobab: Translanguaging in a multimodal sign language translation project. Applied Linguistics Review, [s. l.], v. 9, n. 1, p. 135–156, 2018. DOI 10.1515/applirev-2017-0085. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=128384820&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 29 jun. 2022.

Another review that I cannot open, but mentions MM her in the abstract:

Nolan, E., & Indrisano, R. (2016). The baobab, A storybook app. Journal of Education, 196(1), 53. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/baobab-storybook-app/docview/1776673905/se-2?accountid=196403

A news piece, that does quote her, so not 100% secondary:

Larimer, S. (2017, Jun 05). How one university is trying to reach young, deaf readers. Telegraph-Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/how-one-university-is-trying-reach-young-deaf/docview/1905625974/se-2?accountid=196403

There is lots more on proquest, I hope I've convinced you. Sorry for not listing more here, but real life calls.... CT55555 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, tangential mentions in passing do not establish notability regardless of the quality of the sources. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I commented above, since the relist, but did so above, to keep things in logical order. CT55555 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She also contributed an essay to In Our Own Hands: Essays in Deaf History 1780-1970, which was reviewed in Disability Studies Quarterly and Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to a review in The Journal of Education Vol. 196, No. 1 (January 2016) (via JSTOR), she designed and manages the app, which won the DEVICE Design Award in 2014, and she is a co-author of the story. This is a substantial and positive review. The coverage in the May 28, 2017 Washington Post article How Gallaudet University is working to reach young, deaf readers is about her (including biographical information), her lab, her app, the series of stories, and positive reception from parents and children, so this seems to be SIGCOV about her and her work. Beccaynr (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was also featured in a "Brief But Spectacular" segment on PBS NewsHour in 2019, and I found two WaPo blog posts on ProQuest where she offers information on ASL slang. There are also many reprints of the 2017 WaPo article on ProQuest, and various press releases in the two pages of ProQuest results. She also co-founded the Cultivating Research and Equity in Sign-related Technology (CREST), a research network (Inside Higher Ed, 2020), but I have not found secondary coverage about that or the children's show "Here Comes Mavo!" she helped develop. However, the 2015 NPR coverage When It Comes To Learning For The Deaf, 'It's A 3-D Language' is also about her and her work, including the storybook apps. I think there is sufficient in-depth and secondary attention to her and her work over time, plus some coverage for her art, as a slang expert, tenant, etc to support WP:BASIC notability, and the sources identified in this discussion can help further develop the article, so I !vote keep. Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider in light of new sources found.

*Keep. I can't see the cited Washington Post article, but an article of the same author/similar date on the Wikipedia Library is titled For deaf children, early access to ASL By: Sarah Larimer, Washington Post, The, 05/29/2017. Over half of that article is about Melissa Malzkuhn and her work. Another of the 68 results that appeared when I gave WL her name, is "Avodah Announces Four Distinguished Members to New Sign Language Projects Advisory Council.", June 14, 2022, Business Wire. It starts "Avodah, a transformative SaaS company powering artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities, announced today the joining of four recognized leaders in the Deaf community to its new Sign Language Projects Advisory Council ". A summary is given for each of the four. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The additional sources found since this AFD started are sufficient to prove the subject clearly notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of new sources found and significant expansion since nomination, when this was a very short four-sentence stub.

WP:BASIC allows multiple independent sources to be combined to establish notability. On that basis, the strongest piece of coverage is the 2017 Washington Post feature by Sarah Lorimer. Although the article does include quotes (direct and indirect) from Malzkuhn, it also contains factual information and direct observations by Lorimer herself about Malzkuhn's work at the Motion Light Lab, as well as information she gathered by interviewing others. Similarly, the 2015 NPR story includes quotes from Malzkuhn, but also has some independent analysis and content related to her work, incorporated by NPR. A separate 2022 Washington Post article includes a one-paragraph independent review of Malzkuhn’s art installation.

The two larger pieces from Washington Post and NPR include quotes from other professionals serving the Deaf community and from a parent whose child uses the VL2 storybook apps, which help to validate the impact that Malzkuhn’s work with the Motion Light Lab is having, not just what Malzkuhn herself may claim. Nevertheless, it is important to have additional external perspectives from the broader educational and deaf community (that are “more independent”) regarding the significance of her achievements.

For this, criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE / WP:AUTHOR is satisfied, because she has “played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work” (as evidenced by independent sources). The body of work is the VL2 Storybook Apps, starting with The Baobab, which was reviewed by the Journal of Education in 2016; the larger body of work is noted in the 2020 second edition of the book Deaf Culture: Deaf Communities in the United States. The 2018 article in Applied Linguistics Review is authored by a non-independent source (a Norwegian partner who worked on translating or “translanguaging” The Baobab), but nevertheless demonstrates the international reach of the collective body of work, within the field of applied linguistics.

In total, there is enough coverage across multiple sources to justify keeping this as a standalone bio of a creative professional who is also an academic and Deaf advocate. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:28, 7 July 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 Sweetwater Sound. ✗plicit 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetwater Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable recording studio which fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article (and those additionally available online) either include passing mentions of the recording studio, or are not independent (interview based, client portfolio, press releases etc), or are blogs. I found no sources that could be considered WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sweetwater Sound: I found enough mentions in Google Books and an article [2] in Music Connection that justify its inclusion in the encyclopedia (alongside what is already cited in the article). However, I don't think it has enough justification to be split from its parent page. Merge what is useful and make it a redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep the available sources are not so poor to delete a 40 years company. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sweetwater Sound, I agree with above, not enough sources meet NCORP for this topic so merging makes sense. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenville Rogers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that source intrigue you the most? Ivan Milenin (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is enough around for me to satisfy GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing remotely close to SIGCOV. I don't know what Ivan is saying about the source above but It was the same for Anguilla, who saw Glenville Rogers score the first goal of the game in the 30th minute in the first half. is clearly a passing mention in a routine recap. I got literally only 3 pages of hits on Google, all of them stats databases, wiki mirrors, rephrased versions of the above source, false hits, or police blotters. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets and Gizmos[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources.
But this cites absolutely no sources at all, and even on a ProQuest search all I'm finding is glancing namechecks of its existence in tangential coverage of Amber MacArthur hosting an unrelated special on a different TV channel months after this was cancelled. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself makes a good case for this show's not-notability, and there does not seem to be anything out there to contradict this point of view.TheLongTone (talk) 11:45, 8 July 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 23:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Scott (DJ)[edit]

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

Promotional. No independent sources confirming notability. No meaningful improvements to article since "no consensus" closure of AfD in 2014. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been through AfD under a previous article title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for additional, thoughtful participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Missing references DavidEfraim (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey L. Hall[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, available coverage is limited to non-independent coverage, and an award that seems unlikely to meet WP:ANYBIO standards. I was unable to find more substantial coverage online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM radio presenter (etc) doing their job. Fails WP:BIO. My WP:BEFORE found nothing useful 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable journalist! Couldn't find anything useful on a WP:Before search. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:44, 6 July 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. Although it may be technically ineligible, there's no indication input is forthcoming ergo no one challenging it Star Mississippi 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Glowing Hours[edit]

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

A WP:SPA article about a short film. IMDb indicates that the film was submitted to various film festivals in 2012; I added a press-release confirming that it was joint winner of an award at Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival. However that does not appear to be a "major award" in terms of WP:NFILM criterion 3, and my searches are not finding evidence that the film meets the other criteria - in particular, I am not seeing the review coverage needed to pass criteria 1 and 2. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and England. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 July 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 Sweetwater Sound. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Pro Integrated Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sources are trivial, and no better sources were found online prior to nominating. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweetwater Sound as per WP:ATD. Topic company fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Be (TV series)[edit]

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

Article about a shortlived television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources.
But this cites no coverage at all, and I'm not finding much on a ProQuest search either -- apart from a couple of glancing namechecks of this show's existence in coverage of other things, I'm really only finding MuchMusic's own press releases and accidental text matches where references to the songs "Born to Be Wild" or "Born to Be Alive" (i.e. not this) happened to coincide with references to MuchMusic. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have any real GNG-worthy media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Much As generic of a music bio show as you can possibly get without calling it Artist Biography. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 July 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 12:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make or Break TV[edit]

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

Article about a shortlived television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources. But the only "source" here is the show's own self-published production website, and on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google I found just one decent article about it in a mid-market paper and a tiny smattering of "TV tonight" listings, which isn't enough coverage to get this over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 July 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. Star Mississippi 02:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalydia Velasquez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: I've found these sources.[3][4].--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The second source is ok, but not enough for GNG. Giant Snowman 20:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As well as the sources @MonFrontieres: found, I found this source and at age 11 she became the youngest player to score in an official sanctioned FIFA international tournament. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: See this new source, founded by Das osmnezz. MonFrontieres (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is a clear fail of WP:GNG and Wikipedia:One hundred words Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not change my view, sorry. Giant Snowman 17:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sportsfan 1234: I didn't write to you, or are you GiantSnowman?--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Not sure why, but the reply button sometimes puts the comments at the very bottom. My comments are directed as Das Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources found by MF and DO above are 1) a routine match recap; 2) a reprint of a CONCACAF story, which fails independence; and 3) 1.5 sentences in a news blurb. These are not remotely enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 8 July 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 23:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gilford[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 11 July 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 there is a lot of duplicated content between this page and Minimum wage in the United States, there is some small amount of content on this page that is unique, like the minimum wage in past years. And, while there is substantial support to turn this into a redirect, I don't think it's quite strong enough to form a consensus. I'd recommend that the maintainers of this list article find more ways to differentiate it from the minimum wage article and fill it with relevant data that doesn't already appear in that article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of US states by minimum wage[edit]

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

All information on this page is already included in Minimum wage in the United States. Numberguy6 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh please. The need for notable list articles is a long settled issue. The topic of US state minimum wages is a notable topic. See:

Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists

Lists of U.S. state topics

List of lists of lists

Category:Lists of lists

Wikipedia:Contents/Lists

Minimum wage in the United States is a massive comprehensive article, not a list article.

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it's a list article (though not exclusively). See Minimum wage in the United States#List by jurisdiction. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a massive prose article with some lists too. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minimum wage in the United States per nom and WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Content forking actually recommends spin-off articles as the main article grows. "This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." --Timeshifter (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minimum wage in the United States, especially since Wikipedia is not supposed to take a presentist view. That way we can have text not just on the current minimum wage, but changes over time, also mention states that have mechinisms to increse the minimum wage (here in Michigan where I live there are built in adjustments up that do not require legisltive intervention), also we can cover cities/counties that have higher rates than the state they are in. No reason for a seperate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The list article has some of the changes over time. But I see your point. The solution is to move the rest of the tables from the main article (see: Minimum wage in the United States#List by jurisdiction) and put them below the existing table in the list article. I support that. That way you have a summary table followed by more detailed tables. I don't tend to help with updating tables buried in prose articles. That is because they are more difficult to maintain due to all the prose edits mixed in too. It burdens my watchlist. Tables in list articles are often more up to date for this reason.--Timeshifter (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State and Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State_laws have the same information this article has, and its better suited there with the rest of the relevant information. I see no benefit in splitting it off to a separate page. Dream Focus 23:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply to John Pack Lambert. All the lists can be moved to the list article page. In fact, the prose article is way too long, and parts should be spun off according to these pages:
- Wikipedia:Article size
- Wikipedia:Summary style
- Information for "Minimum wage in the United States"
- --Timeshifter (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't see people trying to move List of countries by minimum wage into the prose article Minimum Wage. Even though there are sections in the prose article with additional info on countries. That's because the prose article is already long. As is the list article. They shouldn't be combined. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Baffled why this was created when the main article's right there with this info. I see no need for a separate article just for the table and map, but reorganization of the main page may be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 02:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people prefer a list article when all they want is quicker access to the data. Versus a TL;DR long prose article with the lists buried within. See previous replies as to why Wikipedia recommends this. The rest of the tables need to be moved to the list article. TL;DR is short for "too long; didn't read". --Timeshifter (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice left at Talk:Minimum wage in the United States. I think this AFD should be extended long enough to get more opinions from actual editors of either the list or prose articles. So far, it seems that mainly only deletionists have commented. No one other than me seems to actually be reading or replying to the actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies I have posted. The editors at the prose article might consider moving the rest of the tables to the list article. That would solve all the problems mentioned so far by commenters wanting all the detailed list data to be together. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Per Mirza, the main article ain't broke. Don't try to fix it by making the main article worse and forcing readers to see the data on a separate page. It's not "quicker access to the data" if it's not on the primary page, it's slower access! Reywas92^Talk 14:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mirza was talking about the list article not being broke. Mirza is an editor of the list article (under Avman89 in the article history). And if you go to Talk:Minimum wage in the United States#Federal minimum wage over time you will see an example of someone who got lost in that huge prose article. From Wikipedia:Article size: "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers.[1] Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see Size guideline (rule of thumb) below." See more links there. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Whole content already exists at Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State_laws. Rustam Fan (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Rustam Fan (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ahmed is an editor of the list article (Avman89 in the edit history). And Mirza Ahmed is correct, there is nothing wrong with what is currently in the list article. The list article just needs the rest of the tables moved to it. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is long, the list is long and the list entries meet the WP:CSC#2 criterion, so there is no policy reason not to have a list article. The solution to the redirectors concerns is to move the lists to the list article instead of combining all into one unwieldy whole. Regarding User:Johnpacklambert's concerns, WP:MOSLIST states that stand-alone lists "may include additional information about the listed items" and WP:SALLEAD expounds on this. For examples of lists with extensive prose sections and/or extensive prose within the list, see John Neal bibliography and List of countries by Human Development Index. — AjaxSmack 02:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the subject is notable but covering it here is a duplication. It is already covered quite well Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State_laws. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to recommend a redirect but it looks like this article is more up-to-date than information on Minimum wage in the United States#State laws, seen by just checking a few random states. I'd advocate having this information on the page where it is most likely to be maintained and kept current. I realize that this isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia but readers come to Wikipedia seeking all types of information and if we are going to have this data available, let's keep it current. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As pointed out above, there's a lot of duplicated info on both pages, including a US map, and a long list showing the states with some overlapping content. I think it's easier to maintain if we put the long tables and map on a single forked list page. Info from the other table should be merged here. Columns can be narrowed to fit in more data if the interior table notes are moved below the table as footnotes. The challenge (besides the merge) will be improving navigation so readers of the other article can easily find the info here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Regis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:20, 6 July 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. Star Mississippi 02:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Tasty and Healthy Food[edit]

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

Nominated as WP:PROD by Молдовський винний погріб.

I removed the PROD tag as I found some results on Google Scholar and Books mentioning this in relation to Soviet cuisine, but I am neutral as to whether it should exist as a standalone article on the English Wikipedia (with lean towards keep). However, I thought this should be brought up for discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Literature, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar search suggests this cookbook has been widely studied. pburka (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Pburka. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 09:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per scholar and book returns, and the Russian article has further details and sources which attest to its significance. Spokoyni (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above.Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:51, 8 July 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 Children's Miracle Network Hospitals but if consensus eventually lands on Children's Miracle Network, that would also be a fine target. That is an editorial decision. Star Mississippi 02:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All-Star Miracle Home[edit]

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

Total spam. Would G11, but it's somehow survived for several years like this. The fundamental purpose of this page seems to be to promote a lottery, and it would need to be rewritten entirely to do anything else. Notability is also somewhat unclear based on the BEFORE search. I also suspect it to be a copyright violation, but I wasn't able to identify where it came from. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Children's Miracle Network, which seems to be the charity that benefits from this and now promotes it. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree – You should feel free to conduct a WP:BLAR (to Children's Miracle Network Hospitals) which would solve the problem and avoid continued, needless discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect would WP:ASTONISH since this program is not mentioned there and a reader would have no idea why they were taken there. This article was written in 2006, and I found a 2007 article, but nothing newer. I don't see enough to meet GNG even if rewritten. MB 00:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim Sattar[edit]

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

other than being mentioned in passing and entirely related to his brother, there is virtually nothing in the way of sources about Sattar, aside from mere charges which he has not been convicted of. This is a massive BLP vio and non-notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maldives. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, and most provided sources do not have significant coverage. Even so, WP:CRIME would not be satisfied by what is described. ComplexRational (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per ComplexRational and Lightburst. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have provide sources from independent articles which may provide sufficient information about this person and I have removed any sources which includes unproven allegations against this person. I would be grateful if you could review this again so that I can make modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auf Shareef (talk • contribs) 02:38, 6 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Wojciechowski[edit]

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

Non-notable government official. Completely fails WP:GNG, with no WP:SIGCOV extant. While WP:POLOUTCOMES does state that assistant secretaries are usually notable, I think the complete lack of coverage places this particular article on the other end of that usually. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United States of America. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to having yet held a level of government office that gives notability, and the sourcing just is not there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not quite there, yet. Simply being involved in politics doesn't make one notable. I checked the bios/BLPs of Ag Secretaries, and also checked United States Secretary of Agriculture to see if we've been listing assistant secretaries, and didn't find any names. All I found was a sub-section for the Line of succession and the title "assistant" but no names. Prior to her nom by Biden, she was a lobbyist for The Nature Conservancy. Being appointed for that position by a US President and having to be accepted by the Senate may be notable, but I don't think it's enough for a stand alone bio. Atsme 💬 📧 14:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 05:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. A news search on either Bing or DuckDuckGo pulls up no results in the news section, and a quick scan through the web section appears to show social media accounts, a few press releases, what appears to be a agricultural news and policy blog, and this article.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:53, 10 July 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.

Dickens in America[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just a plot recap. WP:BEFORE found sources discussing the event the film depicts (namely, Dickens' American tour), but nothing about the film itself. GNG not met. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, and England. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on the outcome but I have made some edits to the page. I have added several references and a bit of background information, as well as extensively shortening the synopses for the first seven (of ten) episodes and putting them into a more standard Wiki list format. I hope this helps. The Cardigan Kid (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews in Playbill and the Independent, presumably added by TCK. pburka (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on current citations, it's a pass for me. Lovewiki106 (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG upon my review.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:20, 6 July 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) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaveland Simon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have the level of sourcing to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emory Tate[edit]

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

Some debate concerning notability. Main debate seems to focus on number of reliable sources. CivilianArthur (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CivilianArthur (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be a case of the sources not being available due to systematic bias. Tate is an important figure in the African American chess community and Daaim Shabazz, a professor at Florida A&M and a chess enthusiast, has published Triple Exclam!!! The Life and Games of Emory Tate, Chess Warrior and has written about him extensively at his website The Chess Drum [5], [6]. But as it is a blog, it would probably not count as a reliable source.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article includes some lightweight material citing unreliable sources, but I would think that the Chess Life obituary and the chess.com obituary should be considered reliable sources. (There is also an obituary in chessbase.) I would also be inclined to treat Triple Exclam as a reliable source to some degree, although it is self-published. The lack of sources prior to obituaries is a peculiar thing -- as if he suddenly became notable upon dying. During his lifetime he was well-known in U.S. chess circles, mainly for his showmanship, but because his actual chess strength didn't go much beyond the IM level, it might not be easy to find articles in the chess press celebrating his exploits. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Unquestionably notable. Emory Tate is an iconic figure, famous for his attacking play, and one of the strongest African-American chessplayers of all time. Maurice Ashley I believe is the only African-American grandmaster, and Emory Tate was one of the only (maybe the only?) African-American IMs. His notability is shown by the fact that ChessBase, Chess Life, and chess.com had obituaries of him (as Bruce leverett noted), and that Prof. Daaim Shabazz (of the famous "The Chess Drum" blog, who was recently honored by USCF) wrote an extensive biography of him. (Full disclosure: I was the proofreader of that biography, "Triple Exclam!!! The Life and Games of Emory Tate, Chess Warrior.") I am mystified by the nomination of this article for deletion, since no one has even advanced an argument why this article should be deleted. Krakatoa (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction: Stephen Muhammad is also an IM. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emory Tate's notability is beyond question. (Disclosure: Tate and I were friendly acquaintances, not quite friends.) The Shabazz book, which I have read, handles source material well. Agree that the article itself needs polishing, but that's irrelevant to the AfD discussion. Billbrock (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billbrock and Krakatoa. Notability standards are met and exceeded by a considerable margin. Numerous high quality sources with editorial oversight are cited in the reference section including Chess Life. In addition there is a well-researched obituary in ChessBase magazine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All evidence of notability given is subjective. No verifiable evidence of notability. Popoki35 (talk) 13:18, 11 July 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 procedural keep. The talk page was incorrectly nominated. The page was renominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emory Tate (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 19:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Emory Tate[edit]

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

Some debate about notability. Major debate seems to focus on number of reliable sources. CivilianArthur (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CivilianArthur (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CivilianArthur did you mean to nominate the talk page because if so that should be nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion. If you meant to nominate the article you'd have to move the tags to the article page and also change this to be titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emory Tate instead of its current title. TartarTorte 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to do that. I've added the template to the actual article page and deleted the one on the talk page. Thank you. CivilianArthur (talk) 19:51, 5 July 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Beast[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails GNG and NFILM; this video doesn't have reviews categorized by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, and searching I only see non-notable critics/horror blogs covering this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment looks like there’s at least an AV Club review[7], plus a couple of others from lesser publications. Artw (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rue Morgue and Horror Society are reliable sources, not to mention the earlier coverage on the production by other reliable sources.★Trekker (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes them reliable sources? Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources just lists Horror Society, for example, as "reliable" with no evidence or discussion demonstrating consensus. What are the reliable sources covering the production? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We at the horror project discuss sources on the project talkpage before they're added to the list.★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And can you point me to those discussions so there's actual evidence these are reliable sources that meet WP:GNG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to look at the history of the talk page of the Horror project.★Trekker (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about this discussion, it's all of three people and frankly doesn't demonstrate a high understanding of what makes a reliable source. Just having an editorial staff is not enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go to the Horror project and point out any issues with the sources that you think make them unreliable to cover horror fiction.★Trekker (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trekker. Artw (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources provided by Trekker.Lovewiki106 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep based on the new sources provided by Artw and Trekker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekab (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storming of the prisons in Donetsk[edit]

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

Unexecuted operation that falls short of WP:NEVENT. I was unable to find any coverage suggesting lasting significance other than a brief flurry of Ukrainian publications citing Mykhailo Nikolov's then-recent public statements in 2020. Not mentioned in any capacity that I can tell at Russo-Ukrainian War, and seems likely UNDUE for merge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of evidence and neutral reliable sources. --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:51, 10 July 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 Classy (group). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myung Hyung-seo[edit]

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

Reality star, part singer/actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NSINGER. Refs are routine PR, profiles and clickbait. scope_creep^Talk 19:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Classy (group) - per nomination, no notability as an individual singer nor actor. The web series she's in X-Garion doesn't seem to be notable. Redirect per usual for Kpop artists in a group. Evaders99 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was planning to redirect, but wasn't absolutely sure. scope_creep^Talk 21:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Zagami[edit]

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

Promotional. Only references are to his own stuff. Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Italy. Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 11 July 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. Star Mississippi 02:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Explosions In The UK[edit]

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

not really sure how localized lists of gas explosions are notable and anything more than WP:NOTNEWS. in any case, this list is redundant if we're to keep just the notable events, as they're already adequately covered here and we don't need a list of every residential gas explosion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three gas explosions on the list have their own articles dedicated to them, and one links to an article about the village Loscoe#Explosion that has a bit about how it lead to new legislation and research. The others don't seem notable enough to be listed. Category:Gas explosions shows how many articles for this subject have happened. Perhaps a list showing just all of them. If the 29 listed for America make that new list too long, it can be split off. Dream Focus 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a list of all gas explosions anywhere. Only notable explosions which are adequately covered in Gas explosions. They happen pretty much every day in many countries (I can think of 3 this summer in my city, alone, none of which are notable.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting a list of those with their own articles only. I wasn't aware there was a list of gas explosions already at gas explosion. I see gas explosions listed along with other things at List of explosions as well. Dream Focus 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notable explosions can be listed at gas explosion (most of that article is a list of explosions anyway), and the rest aren't important enough to be covered in this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the incidents seem insignificant. GenuineArt (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- One issue at the moment would seem to be that it only covers fairly recent events, thereby not featuring some big historic ones, and as such is incomplete and as a result coming across as insignificant as noted. For instance Piper Alpha is not included though a case could be made for its inclusion, and the Clarkston explosion which resulted in over 20 deaths is missing. Thus might be better to draft first? Dunarc (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just add it to the target article where it belongs? PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. My point was more if there was a feeling that there should be a separate article for the UK (which on balance I would probably lean against), that there would need to be more added to it and as it stands it would probably be better as a draft. However, the main article you mention is probably enough to cover what is needed. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 11 July 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) NemesisAT (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weena (Rotterdam)[edit]

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

No indication there is significant coverage of this street. The one ref is from an article that says 400 streets in Rotterdam don't meet pollution standards and only mentions this as the worst. MB 17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reworked the article to emphasize notability and coverage. Weena is a defining street in Rotterdam. Several national monuments and noteworthy buildings are on Weena street. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major commercial street in major industrial city of Netherlands. jengod (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOROAD and the WP:GNG. Nomination is a clear and gross failure of WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. Nominator is concerned only with references, not at all with sources. This is not how articles should be nominated. gidonb (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per WP:HEY due to great work by Ruud Buitelaar and a clear WP:GNG pass based on those sources. Ovinus (talk) 19:55, 9 July 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. WP:ITSUSEFUL is a weak argument if put against the WP:SYNTH concerns. Sandstein 08:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macintosh models by case type[edit]

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

Deleted via prod, resurrected via Refund as "useful", but there's nothing encyclopedic about this. Reliable source are not creating indexes of Mac models by case types, and the end result is an unreferenced gallery with a lot of original research (how some models are arbitrarily broken apart, for example the "slim unibody" versus "unibody" iMacs.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not “useful” and apparently a lot of very detailed SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete synthesis of unrelated ideas. No sources back up the completely arbitrary division system. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it is useful, for example, for a student who is doing a project on the evolution of computer design. Apple is one of the most representative brands in terms of design. A list like this allows you to see this evolution at a glance. Mrodriguezmad (talk) 20:31, 9 July 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) 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sirplay[edit]

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

non-notable gambling company, no in depth coverage, just your average press releases and passing mentions in mostly non-rs PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No more than small press releases or passing mentions. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 16:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are changing headquarters, from europe to the United States.

In the meantime we are in press silence, soon we will reactivate communication with the public.

Thanks Sirplay (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no that's not how this works. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator. For the COI editor it doesn't matter why your organization doesn't have notability, as the organization is not notable it does not merit a wikipedia article. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominator is absolutely correct, major conflict of interest. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mittu Chandilya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was in news only for being CEO of AirAsia India. Article was written like WP:PROMO. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, subject is only mentioned as the CEO of AirAsia India. Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited WP:INVALIDBIO. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 16:23, 5 July 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 and closed on the article by the nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Musselwhite[edit]

Withdrawn, I had incomplete information BrigadierG (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sadly a non-notable academic, and article is most likely a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. His most cited work has been cited 25 times according to google scholar, which is not sufficient for WP:NSCHOLAR, and he does not meet any of the other criteria. BrigadierG (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

top article cited 249 times https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=gUbAOe8AAAAJ&hl=en

second most cited of all time in transport and health https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:transport_and_health

second most cited of all time in older drivers https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:older_drivers

fourth most cited of all time in traffic and transport psychology https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:traffic_and_transport_psychology 144.124.112.162 (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe the subject passes notability guidelines for WP:BIO. The article could use a WP:HEY but I don't see a need for it to be deleted. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 16:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His "Chair in Psychology" position appears to be a personal chair, for scholarly accomplishment, rather than department chair, an administrative position (that's someone else, Nigel Holt [8]). And although we don't have an article on the journal for which he is editor-in-chief, Journal of Transport and Health, it has been around since 2014 from an established publisher and is rated well by SCImago Journal Rank [9]. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 249, 203, 134, 126, ... [10], nothing special for a high-citation field like psychology, but also not so small as to make one question the chair and editorship. So I am not convinced he passes WP:PROF#C1 but I think he does pass #C5 and #C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 5 July 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood Ventures[edit]

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and anything I find is related either to an announcement or one of their investments or a mention-in-passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find announcements and passing mentions of involvement in events (noting a distinct similarly-named firm in Australia), showing a company going about its business, but not the coverage of the firm itself needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 10 July 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 Lucknow Super Division. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Techtro Lucknow FC[edit]

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

Not a fully professional. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Lucknow Super Division as likely search term. NB to nominator that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 21:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why isnt this club notable. Sullyboywiki (talk) 11:35, 7 July 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 Kerala Premier League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basco Othukkungal[edit]

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

A semi professional club without any significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Kerala Premier League as likely search term. NB to nominator that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 21:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: Fails GNG. The Footballean (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some articles about this newly form club, I am not sure it needs deleting. Everything has to start somewhere. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osarhieme Osadolor[edit]

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

Unexplained PROD removal by article creator, here we are. Fails WP:NACADEMIC; WP:GNG, only potentially significant role held was acting vice-chancellor of the Ambrose Alli University - WP:POLOUTCOMES here helps us, "Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable." Coverage relates only to appointment/removal - this is not notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: where are you seeing that the subject is a civil servant? If there are additional sources you're pulling from which aren't currently on the page please add them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete based on current sourcing, willing to reconsider if additional sources are provided. Hope someone can do a non-English source search. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Keep, I messaged a Professor friend from West Africa and they confirmed exactly what Kaizenify and Elemimele have been saying. The VC is the highest professional position at the University and is held by a career academic or administrator, the chancellor is just a local or national notable who generally doesn't do anything besides collect a check. That means the subject here meets WP:NACADEMIC six. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As the article creator; going back to the edit summary of the PROD removal here which explain: “The subject clearly satisfy the criteria 6 of wp:NACADEMIC as “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution” whether as acting or not; he served as the highest official of the university for a period of 10 months where he governed the academic institution”. In Nigeria, the vice chancellor is regarded as the highest level for an academic institution on whether as acting or not; it is appointed based on pedigree within the academic area and this duly satisfy criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC; also beyond being a VC, the subject also satisfy criteria 1 and 4 of WP:NACADEMIC as their works has contributed significantly to the academic and research work in Nigeria history with publications like this, this and this which has contributed to the retrieval of Benin and Nigeria artefacts from different part of the world. Kaizenify (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify something for me? Ambrose Alli University seems to show both a chancellor and a vice chancellor, are you saying that the vice chancellor is the actual person in charge and the chancellor is just a figurehead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Thank you Horse Eye’s Back; chancellor in Government public universities in Nigeria are usually a ceremonial non-resident head of the university mainly traditional leaders and monarchs with no administrative effect in the school and academic experiences. The vice chancellor is the administrative and academic head and the highest appointment of the institution. Kaizenify (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the person described as chancellor at WP's article on the university, it is Yahaya Abubakar who is clearly not the academic in charge. It is a very common misconception that vice chancellors are somehow second in command. In most universities where the VC is named, they are the absolute head, the chancellor being some sort of figure-head who might make the occasional appearance for ceremonial reasons, but who has no influence over the running of the university. This university's own website names its vice-chancellor, but not its chancellor [11] Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, what you say is true for universities modeled on the British system. In the US, the titles are different. The US university at which I work has a chancellor who is the academic in charge, and a vice chancellor who works under the chancellor (focused more on managing the campus and less on external affairs). We do not have ceremonial chancellors. But I believe that in Nigeria, VC is the real head. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep. There appears to be a story behind his appointment, with his role as more than just caretaker [12] He has clearly published respectably in his field, and vice-chancellors are the top of the heap. We can't redirect to Ambrose Alli University because he's not mentioned there; in fact we're not serving our readers well, as Ignatius A. Onimawo describes this predecessor as a former vice-chancellor without explaining what happened. My feeling is that we would probably accept an article about someone who became vice-chancellor of a middle-sized UK or US university by government decree following a mess-up (rightly considering this to be a major matter in academic circles) so we should be biased towards doing the same for Nigeria. Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (

Comment. Do we have any guidance on what a "major university" or "significant accredited college" is? Is it relative to the region, or on an absolute scale? It would be helpful to know the background on this criterion -- was it included from the assumption that university heads would have had sufficient academic impact as researchers before going into administration, or was there an expectation that such positions always garner GNG coverage? Also, he seems to have only been an interim/acting VC, which would not meet C6. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: C6 does not exclude interim/acting leaders, holding the position is all that is required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair level of consensus on this: for the two most recent discussions see here and here. Interim/acting presidents/VCs have not undergone the degree of vetting performed on candidates for the actual VC position; this scrutiny has been considered an essential prerequisite for the assumptions of C6. JoelleJay (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linked consensus seems to go the other way... The argument that a "confirmed" VC who serves for a single day is automatically notable but an acting VC who serves for a decade (a reality in some systems) is not just can't be taken seriously. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in fact totally reasonable to assume NPROF notability for a VC who only serves one day (and not for a long-term acting VC): the whole reason we have that criterion is because it demonstrates other people have decided that person's academic background (etc.) is extraordinary enough to meet the stringent standards for VCship. It's essentially the same as designating someone a distinguished professor; the notability comes from their being independently evaluated as worthy of the distinction, not for how long they've had it. And I'm not seeing how the linked discussions point to a different consensus. Maybe David Eppstein could weigh in here? JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Acting VC of a university counts per WP:PROF. Gusfriend (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — served as the VC of a Nigerian university. Satisfies WP:NACADEMIC#6. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 20:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Vice Chancellor is the highest position of any university in Nigeria, that's why there are "Deputy Vice Chancellor" who is second to the VC. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appers to meet WP:PROF Kazanstyle (talk) 17:16, 9 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Brocklebank[edit]

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

Notability. The Harper's source is the only cite that might serve to establish notability, and I would argue it's really too weak to do so. These lists of putative movers and shakers are often very shonky.TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability per WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Morpho achilles (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of mentions in the press, mostly interviews or her commenting on something or another. I'm unable to find any sources about her directly. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And the page is also quite non-neutral to me when I reviewed it as an NPR, which is why I placed a neutrality template on it. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any direct information on her either and consider it not notable. Kazanstyle (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe Myanmar titleholders[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. This list does not warrant a split from the main page in terms of size. – Meena • 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Myanmar. – Meena • 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support mostly because it doesn't warrant a split from the main page, there isn't much extra information that would even need to be merged. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's all covered by Miss Universe Myanmar. A redirect could have been justified per WP:CHEAP but this a very new WP:FORK so just delete. gidonb (talk) 16:45, 9 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil an Mhuillinn[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy GNG. A Google search provided no RS or significant coverage. – Meena • 13:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ireland. – Meena • 13:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school that (per WP:NSCHOOL) fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG. Noting that the title of the subject is incorrect (the actual school is called "Gaelscoil An Mhuilinn" [one "l" in Mhuilinn] and not "Gaelscoil an Mhuillinn" [two "L"s]), I did a quick WP:BEFORE search. The only news sources I can find are things like this or this. Which amounts to fairly run-of-the-mill coverage in local news sources only. Searches in national news sources (like the Irish Times or Irish Examiner or RTÉ) return nothing at all. Put simply, schools are not automatically notable. And this relatively small and otherwise typical primary school is no exception. Guliolopez (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable Primary school Spleodrach (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 17:21, 9 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Škrlec (BOBNAR)[edit]

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

Slovenian drum teacher. No notability whatsoever in evidence - fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO, under-sourced and promotional. Promotional can be edited out, notability can't be edited in. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Slovenia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Biggest claim to fame is being a touring drummer with a borderline notable band. That is simply not enough. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every drummer who is with a band significant enough to tour becomes notable. In fact, for musical groups much more notable than the one he is with, a large number of the members are not notable, so this is a very clear case of not being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon is teaching at Soki's drum school for 4 years from the beginning of the school. In this time he teached more than 122 different drummers and had many concerts with young talented drummers.

https://www.sokidrumschool.com/ucitelji/ Simon.skrlec (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons stated by the nominator and previous voters. I did learn that searching is tough, probably due to poor translation, with the three words in his name ("Simon" and "Škrlec" and "Bobnar") being used in every possible order and various all-caps shenanigans. Regardless, his connections with various bands are tangential, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote his teaching career and social media clicks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bryan Wilson[edit]

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

His list of roles is extraordinary, a career that has spanned being Shelly the Hamster; Cairo Street Camel; The Bat (assistant) - whatever an assistant bat does. He may have 'slimed' Bill Murray but he is not notable per WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR. Coverage is not substantive or independent. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm expecting paper sources to turn up, this is about the best one online I can find, and it only really mentions him in passing [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who you do not actually see on screen need good sourcing to show notability. This article is written to look like it might have good sourcing, but when you look behind the curtain you realize it is just not there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 5 July 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 The Under Presents. ✗plicit 13:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tender Claws[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP - games developer with no independent coverage, very poor sourcing attempts to disguise a patently commercial and non-notable article. When you're presenting a gaming company as interesting because one of its games is unplayable, you're in the weeds, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Under Presents along with Samantha Gorman as a WP:ATD. Since their game is notable, there's definitely a place for them on Wikipedia, but it's probably just a redirect as of now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 04:58 , 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect to The Under Presents. Occurs only passingly in sources that are about the the games. The Under Presents seems to be the only game with an article. If there was a second notable game, the article should be deleted per WP:XY. IceWelder [✉] 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 08:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Under Presents as per WP:ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 20:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:ATD. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Hodgins-May[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL - an candidate unelected to any post of public service. Arguably also fails WP:GNG, coverage is routine political announcements, interviews, stories about her parents, trivial. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The impact of Hodgins-May on the Greens electoral fortunes within the Victorian Jewish community is significant and enough to keep the page under WP:GNG. The general discussion about whether the Greens are anti-semitic or anti-Zionist will often include references to Hodgins-May, and the incident is regularly referenced in campaigns when the Greens are running candidates. I am inclined to agree with your other points, that without the Jewish communal angle she would not be notable enough for an article, but because of her impact within that community I am a strong keep on this one.Playlet (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not persuaded that a subject's "impact" is a valid reason for inclusion, however where that impact is evidenced by RSs then of course policies such as WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO etc may be met. In this instance she may fail WP:NPOL however there seems to be a substantial number of RSs on the page that would meet the other relevant requirements. Additionally, a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (wider and deeper than Google) revealed 229 results, which I haven't perused, but that would seem to indicate there would be ample RSs available. Cabrils (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Additionally, the only sources which are not trivial passing mentions or interviews with any in-depth coverage are all pieces about her backing out of debate after she learned in was being hosted by a Zionist activist group, and all in Jewish press which understandably took an interest. It caused a bit of a local scandal in the Jewish community, but to my mind runs afoul of WP:BLP1E issues and neutrality issues as the sources themselves have a certain bias. If your greatest claim to fame is backing out of a debate that doesn't make you encyclopedically notable.4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the subject notable? If so under what guideline?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BIO for the reasons that Cabrils cited above. Deus et lex (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That'd be Playlet the struck sock, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on public interest basis: she may run for office again, and this page would be helpful to Australian voters in that case.Robert (talk) 19:25, 13 July 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 2022 Maurice Revello Tournament. If this is not the best redirect target, feel free to alter this after talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Maurice Revello Tournament[edit]

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

The tournament was cancelled, and as a result, it fails WP:GNG, as there is not significant coverage about it. There doesn't look to be much other coverage about it (other than saying it's cancelled, and a team list). There is already an article for the 2022 Maurice Revello Tournament, which covers the fact that the 2021 edition was postponed for 6 months i.e. it's not the 2022 edition Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not understand this article - the tournament is the Toulon Tournament, and has its own page - in fact, Maurice Revello Tournament is a redirect to Toulon Tournament. There is no need whatsoever for this article about when it wasn't a tournament, even by the wrong name. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 edition also uses the name [[Maurice Revello Tournament], so maybe this is the tournament's new/current name? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 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 13:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Schlesinger (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Have examined sources in the article and online, and can only find very minor roles, or non-notable projects. Edwardx (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, France, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, sourcing inadequate, marginal body of work. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 5 July 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 13:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hervé Renoh[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Cannot find anything substantial in the article or online. Edwardx (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much found in French sources, mostly information about his Requiem film. Long way from notability standards from what I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LinkMe[edit]

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

WP:NCORP, WP:SERIESA, non-notable startup. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An App. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing references seem to be based on company sources. Quick Google search reveals little/no independent coverage. Paul W (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a room for improvement on this article given that there are multiple sources that seem to be reliable, And i see how i can improve it.Ndizibanana (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon --2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable app. HomemadePotato (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The sources are failed to passed WP:NCORP.None of them are reliable. All sources are related to social media and company websites.Jimandjam (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to the draft Space Given the reasoning above i think this article should moved to draft for further improvement instead of the main space.Ndizibanana (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your second !vote. You may only !vote once but you may strike out a !vote ~~like this~~ to indicate which !vote you want to be considered. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read a nice article someone wrote on Entreprenuer. They have a lot of press, quick google search show's it's a globally used app in over 180 countries, they even hit top 100 on the app store. Was surprised to see they're verified on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube with a few million followers across all platforms. 67.205.200.70 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sourcing that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:48, 11 July 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Partridge[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Joeykai (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be shocked if someone with 160 appearances for Manchester United was non-notable (for the 160 games, see here). BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A player with 160 caps and 18 goals for Manchester United,[14]. Has book coverage [15][16] and with certainty plenty of period newspaper coverage. Still on the record books as one of the oldest players to play for Manchester. Joeykai did you even try searching or looking him up? Because this is a very bad nomination.--Mvqr (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable as demonstrated above. Giant Snowman 21:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources including book sources show that he is well covered and enough to pass WP:GNG, as there will definitely be WP:OFFLINESOURCES about him, given that there are online book sources about him. Any delete votes based on "not enough sources" would be a violation of WP:OFFLINESOURCES, as sources are almost certain to exist, and the onus should be on the person wanting deletion to actually demonstrate there aren't any sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Almost certain to exist" isn't quite the same as "verifiable" as per WP:NRV. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are y'all kidding me? Being mentioned a handful of times in match recaps in a book that covers basically every Man U-Liverpool fixture isn't SIGCOV. Being named in a list of players in another book is not SIGCOV. Such namedrops wouldn't count for historical military commanders, why should they for footballers? JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The books listed only have trivial mentions of the subject. A search in the British Newspaper Archive, both under "Teddy Partridge" and "Edward Partridge", only turned up trivial mentions. This particular source also states that he was 28 years old when he transfered to Halifax Town in 1929, meaning he might have been born in 1901 but not 1891. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe he does have enough coverage to pass GNG, and have started to add a range of information to the article to support this.RossRSmith (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be sufficient information and sources to warrant an article. Has been expanded since the delete votes above. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AFAICT the newly-added refs are the same ones with passing mentions Alvaldi brought up above. Also, articles from the same newspaper count as one source for notability -- so there are technically only two new sources added that could potentially contribute to GNG, the Derby Daily Telegraph and the Halifax Evening Courier. From what I've seen of the latter, it's just routine transactional news of indeterminate provenance (could be press releases). The former has a brief blurb on him that could maybe go towards BASIC but is otherwise not significant. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 12 July 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 11:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Razaq Obe[edit]

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

Appointed to non-elected minor regional role in the Ifedore local government of Ondo State. That's too marginal a role for WP:NPOL and he otherwise fails WP:GNG. Article tagged for promo/notability and rightly so. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The reliable sources I saw after a WP:Before do not cover the subject significantly. Commissioners may not likely meets WP:NPOL. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:43, 8 July 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 11:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frames Per Second Films[edit]

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

Film production services company doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NCORP, as far as I can tell. My search didn't find any significant coverage—only occasional passing mentions in the press. Without sources that discuss the company "directly and in detail", it isn't notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 12 July 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. Happy to keep based on Mx. Granger's sources. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Noble Spirit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:NFILM. Whilst the generic nature of the name of the film makes it hard to find sources, nothing in the way of significant coverage turned up in my WP:BEFORE. All sources appeared to be just bare mentions of the film in a long list of films due to be shown at the Nanning film festival. The absence of a corresponding ZH-language article is another indicator that this is non-notable. For the avoidance of doubt, the sources on the page are not reliable, independent coverage, but instead essentially promo/advertising of the film and/or user-created - the Douban and Entgroup pages are IMDB-style database listings. FOARP (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and China. FOARP (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I searched a bit and found some Chinese-language sources about the film: [17] [18] [19] [20]. I suspect a more thorough search would find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:42, 5 July 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 Just!. ✗plicit 11:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just Disgusting![edit]

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

Except for a minor award (that probably doesn't count towards GNG) this article is unsourced, and I could find another ref that has a passing mention that definitely isn't GNG: From Just Disgusting, by Andy Griffiths, a book that was read to one of my sons in school recently. IMO fails notability and should be deleted. There is a section of this at the Andy Griffiths article, it's no better, relying on Goodreads and Amazon reviews. Fails all guidelines for WP:BK, there isn't two significant, reliable, indepedent refs, the award is too minor to be major to met Criteria 2 (that article also has a notability tag). It also only has a plot summary, which also is not suitable for article per WP:BK. VickKiang (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just!. The series seems to be notable, as it was the basis for a TV show and there's some coverage for the books along these lines, but the individual books aren't. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just!. ^ spoke my mind. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 09:10, 6 July 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 speedily deleted by Oshwah per G5 (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Film Dubbing Studio[edit]

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

Does not satisfy GNG; no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. – Meena • 10:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and China. – Meena • 10:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding article on zh.wikipedia cites several sources that appear to be reliable for this topic. A bit of online searching turned up others as well: [21][22][23] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:58, 5 July 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 Coat of arms of Ukraine. Sandstein 08:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Designs of the coat of arms of Ukraine by Heorhiy Narbut[edit]

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

I am not sure how I see this as an independent article outside of Coat of arms of Ukraine, I can't see people searching for this full title, maybe Heorhiy Narbut and Ukraine coat of arms, and he doesn't seem to be mentioned on the main article. So maybe a merge? Govvy (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy I found a Ukrainian article and I think it's pretty notable and many books and academia papers are published on this topic. Narbut is the crator and designer of many basic stuff like coat of arms, hryvnia currency, etc. Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion the topic is notable, but should be expanded a little bit. It's more about historic page. I've already addea a list of literature there. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Молдовський винний погріб: There are two locations, the coat of arms page I mentioned above and Heorhiy Narbut article, I simply don't see the need for this article which you created. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy I didn't create, I linked it to a Ukrainian one. let ask the author to explain. but I see that it's a romm here for this article. @(W)rid(t)ing High please help with your article Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything relevant to Coat of arms of Ukraine. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coat of arms of Ukraine. The arms discussed in this article are those of a short-lived communist state, existing briefly (I think at Kharkiv) during the civil war between red and white Russians after the Russian revolutions, when there was a separate government at Kyiv. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 7 July 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. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin D. Azar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - wholly unremarkable personal injury lawyer, the usual coverage of cases he has been involved in, no independent in-depth coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a personal injury lawyer with no actual claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accessed The Wikipedia Library and did a meta search in the "search the library" box at the top of the page. I searched "Franklin D. Azar" (with the quotes) and got 146 results. Note that, unlike a Google search, this is a search of curated, proprietary databases. Yes, some of the hits were from PR newswire, but since they are included in The Wikipedia Library I think they should carry some favorable weight indicating notability. Moreover, the results did include some peer-reviewed articles. Leaving off the quotation marks in the search retrieves over 17,000 results. Searching "frank azar" (with the quotes) brings up 83 results. The articles retrieved span a period of twenty years and include reporting in major newspapers. After no-fault insurance law was aboloshed, Azar became an early pioneer in torts-based accident compensation. This and other significant coverage establishes sufficient notabliity for a Wikipedia article, as indicated by The Wikipedia Library. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I'm new on Wikipedia, but just wanted to chime in: I'm in Colorado and Frank Azar is well known here. I added some information about his involvement in a famous Anna Nicole Smith case, and about the road they named for him. Does that help show his notoriety? User:Preasserrano (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No obvious notability in sourcing. Is Coloradans know his name, but that's a matter of local interest to those in need of a personal injury lawyer. Unless sourcing appears that suggests he's notable outside of his own PR, I can't see reason to keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written. Nothing here shows encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is some local coverage, they mostly focus on a specific case and not Azar himself. The vast majority of refs are not reliable or notability lending. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 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 12:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stroker Serpentine[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO & likely advertisement. Created a sex avatar in a video game. Limited media coverage from non-specialist sources and single lawsuit does not clear standards for inclusion. JJLiu112 (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redhill (communications agency)[edit]

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

Promo page by paid editor with declared COI, no evidence of notability, links are all PR sites and paid ads. Previously speedied. JamesG5 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, from either the sources in the article or elsewhere. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And should have been speedied again. SALT this time. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails GNG. Alphaonekannan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Cites primary sources and routine business news only, non-SIGCOV. Self-promotion, does not meet NCORP 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:COI article summarising a PR agency's area of operation. Notability is not inherited from clients and inclusion in fastest-growing lists are regarded as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. A company going about its business, and acquiring other sector firms, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 10 July 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 keep !votes are mainly predicated on the incorrect inference that Mr. Perry is Mayor of London, which he is not. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Perry (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL and, in my opinion, WP:GNG too. I didn't tag it for speedy deletion (based on the previous AfD), since he was recently elected to a different position (Mayor). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can’t really believe we’re doing this when I think there was a consensus previously that a Directly Elected Mayor of a London Borough does meet the notability standard (the dispute before was whether a candidate did, and I think the agreement was that they didn’t). He has the 2nd largest personal mandate of any politician in London (after only Sadiq Khan) as he is the Directly Elected Mayor of London’s Largest Borough. He is no less notable than 3 of the other 5 Mayors (Lutfur Rahman of course being extremely notable). The only difference in terms of status between Mr Perry and Mr Egan, Mr Glanville and Ms Khan is the party they represent. If Editors do choose to delete this article we should of course be reviewing all others in London and reaching the same conclusion (with the exception previously described for Lutfur Rahman who does have a different level of notability).

Keep London Boroughs means pretty big mayors. WP:POLOUTCOMES gives us "Mayors: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville" and additionally, "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London." (my bold). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That covers Sadiq Khan, not the mayor of a borough. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Directly-elected mayors in the UK are clearly notable and pass WP:POLITICIAN. He passes WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so clear considering it's not written down anywhere I can easily find. Perhaps if there's consensus, we should actually add it somewhere people can see it, instead of leaving it hidden on some talk page and calling it a day, and then assuming everyone knows about it. Curbon7 (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It thought the above was quite clear, no? From WP:POLOUTCOMES? That's not a core policy, I know, but it's pretty specific guidance as to likely outcome... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's different from what Necro is saying. Yes mayors of places like Manchester or places of that size are notable per the outcomes, but what I'm referring to is that Necro is implying that all directly-elected mayors in the UK are notable, meaning does this include, for example, the directly elected mayor of the Borough of Copeland, even though that is a pretty small city; and if so, we should probably notate that somewhere, so as to avert confusion. Curbon7 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. No, I'd not have any idea of any 'catchall' policy. London, clearly. Major cities, clearly. St Davids? Not so much... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article can see significant improvement. The notability bar for mayors always lives or dies on their sourceability, and never on any sort of "this place is so important that its mayors are 'inherently' notable even if they're sourced for beans" freebies — but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and contains none of the substantive content about the significance and impact of his mayoralty that would be necessary to establish his notability as a mayor — it's literally just "Jason Perry is a mayor, so here's a couple of sentences of pre-mayoral career background, the end", which is not how you establish the notability of a mayor. Properly establishing a mayor's notability requires writing and reliably sourcing (i.e. to media coverage) content about specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the place he was mayor of, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely nothing like that here. And the "precedent" cited above covers off the citywide offices — i.e. Mayor of London and Greater London Council — and does not create an automatic inclusion freebie for the borough councillors or mayors in every individual London borough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not consistent with the approach taken to all previous Labour Mayors in London - Damien Egan, Philip Glanville and Rokhsana Fiaz all suffer from the exact same issue regarding sourceability. A more citations needed message such as that on Mr Egan's article would certainly be appropriate, as would Template:Primary sources. To delete would be totally inconsistent with all previous editorial decisions on Directly elected Mayors in Greater London - every one previously has been viewed as notable, with articles that are largely similar in terms of size and content. If you wished to establish a new precedent here it would arguably require the pages of all other current Mayors with the exception of Lutfur Rahman (who clearly passes WP:GNG) to be deleted too for consistency. Borough Mayors certainly hold a higher status than Borough Councillors, and many would argue would meet WP:POLITICIAN - Jason Perry has certainly received significant press coverage even if the article has not yet caught up - [24]. As for WP:POLOUTCOMES, Croydon would arguably meet the definition of "City of at least regional prominence" (despite not actually being a City). It is the largest Borough in the entirety of London, and is larger than a significant number of English Cities. Trimfrim20 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "making up" anything that varies one comma from established consensus. POLOUTCOMES explicitly says "the main citywide government", and says nothing whatsoever about sub-citywide boroughs — it's the mayor of London and the Greater London Council who get automatic presumptions of notability regardless of the quality of the article, while borough mayors and borough councillors are considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia only if their sourcing and substance are solidly on point enough to show that they pass WP:NPOL #2, and get no automatic notability freebies in the absence of a solid and well-sourced article that demonstrates passage of NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misrendering of POLOUTCOMES. You are citing the municipal officers/councilors section, not the mayors section. Referring to the *mayor* section: an urban agglomeration of 350,000+ people is not what would generally be understood as small. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. This subject is not the Mayor of London, so does not pass WP:GNG. The question, for a local official (not a major city mayor), is whether there are multiple sources that discuss the policies and specific accomplishments of the subject. None of the sources in the article or discussed here amount to more than "he exists." --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been mentioned earlier in the discussion that there is significant coverage (BBC, ITV and London Evening Standard) that is not yet included in the article, all of which would result in him passing both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, as all other London Borough Mayors are considered to do so. Adding a ((More citations needed)) tag would be sufficient in this case, and as per WP:ATD “ If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. Trimfrim20 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll just note WP:NEXIST is worth recalling. Fairly simple searching shows national media coverage of Perry's candidacy and election (noted for bucking the trend of Conservative losses in the 2022 local elections) from the BBC, ITV, The Financial Times, and The Evening Standard (although the last is technically a London, rather than national, paper). There's widespread, independent coverage of Perry's policies since being Mayor in a number of outlets ("New Croydon mayor Jason Perry misses first scrutiny meeting due to Covid", Residents question new Croydon mayor's vow to re-open popular Purley Pool Croydon mayor blames 'rising costs' as new library set to become shop Croydon mayor defends choice to make all decisions himself). We're discussing a person in charge of a constituency with a population of 350,000+ with 95,000 votes in the 2022 election on a 35% turnout...that's a larger electorate than the average House of Commons constituency. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdysim[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable; none of the sources are independent. Created as part of a massive article drive of poorly translated and/or not-notable book articles (ANI thread for context: [25])

Actually, I don't even think a book by this title exists. (It's presumably a mistake, with "Rowdyism" intended, but it seems unlikely to me that a book entitled شغب would be translated in this way. ar-wiki article on that word for comparison: [26]) asilvering (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedy, creation by a blocked user, one of a number who appear to have been involved in an ill-conceived attempt by a university-based group to create Arabic/English book-related WP content that got most of 'em blocked. Entirely without merit. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitby Wizard[edit]

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

Notability Happyecheveria (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and England. Happyecheveria (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close. No reason given for deletion (or any reason for anything at all really). Thincat (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to this puzzled too why it was up for deletion. --Bduke (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable even when defunct. --Mervyn (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How can this stub be 'Clearly notable' based on a single source that says nothing more than 'it closed' (from a low-circulation local newspaper?) Clearly fails WP:N there's no prospect of this article being any more than a single sentence based on the complete lack of in-depth coverage by any source. JeffUK (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Very clearly fails to meet WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" !votes need to elaborate further. Citing a relevant notability guideline, how is this museum notable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it is seen as "the quirkiest science centre museum in the U.K" and "it was inspired by the world famous Exploratorium in San Francisco and the Questacon Science Circus based in Canberra" makes it interesting as these are famous museums. It does however need sources other than the local newspaper, but I think that needs someone closer to the museum than I am. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the most detailed nomination I've seen, but sort of cuts to the chase. If you want The Express as higher circulation coverage, here it is, but it's a pretty passing mention. Other than that, notability is absent. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 5 July 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. Procedural keep as the nominator has withdrawn their proposal and there are no formal Delete comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azhagu Nila[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources; besides Wikipedia is not a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB Website Link for the movie, youtube website link for the movie added to the article, so please remove the deletion tag. Alangar Manickam (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alangar Manickam you need to familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:RSP because none of those and I really do mean none - are relaible, much less can they establish notability. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't consider IMDB, Youtube, Amazon Music library links, Ganaa.com links then you need to apply some basic common sense. Alangar Manickam (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to read our policies because you're simply wrong and that isn't going to change no matter how many times you accuse everyone else of lacking common sense, my friend. Of course you're totally welcome to continue making baseless arguments, but they will be discounted and it will still result in deletion if you can't provide actual sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are here in wikipedia doing more destructive work, than constructive work. Alangar Manickam (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to rethink your approach to calling experienced editors destructive or you're likely to wind up blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable old Tamil film and is mentioned twice in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema (pdf here). The official name of the film per CBFC and title card is Azhaku Nila. Newspaper sources here, here, here, here, and here. DareshMohan (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: As the one who opened this AfD, I now say it be withdrawn. Congrats to DareshMohan for adding those sources (I found one too). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB Website Link for the movie, youtube website link, Amazon Music library links, Ganaa.com links for the movie added to the article, so please remove the deletion tag.

IMDB, YouTube, Amazon Music and Ganaa.com are not reliable or notability-assisting sources. You need to source the article to reliable source coverage about the film in media to stave off deletion, not directory entries or streaming copies of the film — because notability is not established by verifying that the film exists, it's established by verifying that the film got media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 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. But we'll know soon enough if coverage comes to fruition. If it doesn't, this can be re-visited sooner rather than later. Name can be discussed editorially. Star Mississippi 14:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Platinum Jubilee Concert[edit]

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

Non-notable, run-of-the-mill concert scheduled to take place next month; one of a hundreds of similar events in this never-ending festival of mawkishness. I can't find any independent, outside coverage that says more than "this will happen". – Joe (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Royalty and nobility, and Australia. – Joe (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: This is the first time a Jubilee concert is taking place in Australia, and we can hope more sources will appear near to the day. I will then improve it, but I don't see why there's a rush to delete this now. Peter Ormond 💬 21:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is kept it also needs to be renamed given the existence of Platinum Party at the Palace, which was also a Platinum Jubilee Concert (and what I assumed this article was about until I read it). Queen's Platinum Jubilee Concert (Brisbane) or Queen's Platinum Jubilee Concert (Australia). Also per WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet notability guidelines, it makes sense it's quite a stub before the event, this can be expanded after the fact. El Dubs (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please identify the sources that demonstrate that this event is notable? Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are there any other articles of this type - like The Queen's Golden Jubilee Concert, for example? GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 5 July 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 Red Allen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Allen, Kid Ory & Jack Teagarden at Newport[edit]

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

Appears not to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for albums. Barring the two references; one of which is for the label and the other is an Allmusic review; i found no other references for this release. The helper5667 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:XY.Redirect to Red Allen. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE aside from AllMusic. SBKSPP (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Allen, as bandleader who played on all the tracks. There is original coverage in Billboard, as well as brief (brief) mentions in the usual guides, like Larkin, and jazz histories. Caro7200 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't thought of that. That should do as well. SBKSPP (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 July 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. Star Mississippi 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gregory Pestana[edit]

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

Usher of the Second Magistrate's Court in Singapore is not a position that confers notability. There is press coverage of the subject but this is “local” in the context of the time and it does not amount to a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Singapore. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this, the Malaya Tribune was distributed across Malaya, Siam, Java, Sumatra and Borneo, and the Morning Tribune was also distributed in Johor. According to this, the Saturday Tribune was also published in Ipoh, Penang and Kuala Lumpur. According to this, The Straits Times also had offices in London and Kuala Lumpur. Would the sources from the Morning Tribune, the Malaya Tribune, the Sunday Tribune and The Straits Times be enough to pass GNG? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is shown through significant coverage, as noted above by Somebodyidkfkdt, for the subject in the reporting by the Morning Tribune, Malaya Tribune, Sunday Tribune and The Straits Times. Meets WP:GNG to show notability and passes basic criteria for WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 3 to 7 are trivial coverage of his death where each article has a single paragraph announcing his death while the rest are lengthy records of who turned up at his funeral wake. Source 1 and 2 has some coverage but the articles are only due to his retirement. This does not present WP:SIGCOV While the newspapers are regional in nature, the coverage is entirely local to Singapore. The article will be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL with no establishment of notability of the BLP subject. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, and source 3 also gives significant coverage. WP:AUD states that regional media is a strong indicator of notability. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3
Paragraph 1 - 1 sentence mentioning subject has died.

Paragraph 2 - 2 sentences mentioning his age and family and funeral details.

Paragraph 3 - 1 sentence mentioning his retirement and his previous job.

Paragraph 4 - 1 sentence mentioning his hobby.
It failed to provide any significant coverage of subject beside a typical obituary of death time/place, family, past job and hobby. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the rest of the sources are not significant coverage, wouldn't he then be able to pass WP:BASIC, since there are five sources which aren't significant? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 to 7 are still trivial coverage which would not amount to WP:BASIC (just imagine putting up obituary notices in multiple papers in different countries). Also, if a person is notable, there should be coverage over his life, not only at retirement and death. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if he wasn't notable, there would not be coverage of his retirement. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG on coverage and WP:JUDGE on role in life. Seems relatively uncontroversially so to me in both cases... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article's creator, I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, if I am not, can someone just strike out the keep? I believe the first two sources count towards GNG as they are both regional papers and are about the subject. I think the other five sources together also count towards notability per WP:BASIC. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 5 July 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. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Saad Indian School, Al Ain[edit]

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

No significant coverage from the sources ChristinaNY (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and United Arab Emirates. ChristinaNY (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This 2016 article from Khaleej Times does an in-depth coverage of the school whereas articles like this one from May 2019 as well as this one from August 2021 by indiansgulf.in discuss the academic achievements of the school besides other references in which the name of the school is itself the headline. Hence, in my perception the school meets the notability criteria to the customary extent. Derivator2017 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IndiansinGulf, apart from having an existential issue with the use of the definite article, is not RS, having no editorial policy - in fact, it's essentially a blog/bunch of RSS feeds and will publish anything submitted. The rest is all sourced to the school and/or marginal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 5 July 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. Although the delete side does not hold a numerical majority, ultimately the article as-is is a dictionary definition, and the arguments that Wikipedia is not a dictionary win the day. If anyone proposes to write more about the subject they can request the article to be restored at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian enclave[edit]

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

One sentence "article" that could easily be covered elsewhere, though I have no idea where. I'd suggest draftifying, but hasn't been edited by the creator since the day it was created over 3 weeks ago. BilCat (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic as evidenced by the cited sources. AfD is not cleanup or a way to force article expansion. If you are proposing a merge this is the wrong process (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are heaps of sources on this. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary, wiki isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. This is not Wiktionary. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory glance at the sources suggest there is potential for far more than a single sentence on this topic, although this may not ultimately be the best location for it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –Ploni (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a political concept, it's perfectly apposite; there's a broad range of multi-disciplinary academic literature which discusses the phenomenon. That a dictionary and an encyclopedia will have similarly titled entries is obvious; the presence of Cloud, Water, Temperature, Economics or State etc does not make this encyclopaedia a dictionary. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its notable topic. Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not the droid you're looking for (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Mishra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Different enough that it's not a G4 (the one deleted in January had more sourcing), but still no evidence this person is notable Star Mississippi 19:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and India. Star Mississippi 19:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to all those still active from prior AfDs: @GSS, QueerEcofeminist, NeverTry4Me, Venkat TL, and Onel5969: Star Mississippi 20:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the substantive coverage that we need to justify an article. Not every police officer is notable, even those who rise somewhat through the ranks. We need good sourcing to show notability and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 5 July 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. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Ugalde[edit]

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

A search across Google (incl. Google Books, Scholar etc.) returns just a single source – an entry within a reference book – which is already cited in the article. Article would also be an orphan if not for a single mention elsewhere – the fact that she decorated a room at a museum. Fails WP:GNG. Jkaharper (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She meets our notability requirements of WP:ANYBIO per criterion #3: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography) as she has a verifiable entry in: Jules Heller; Nancy G. Heller (19 December 2013). North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-63882-5, Page 551 and 611. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a "standard national biographical dictionary", being limited to one gender, one profession and one century (although covering more than one country. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, that is not a dictionary of national biography and its the sole existing source for her that I already identified above. There are no others. How do you suggest ever expanding the article? --Jkaharper (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source for her entry in the 20th women's encyclopedia is the Enciclopedia de México per comment by Jahaza. No ambiguity that she clearly meets ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source does not meet the tight description of what a standard national biographical dictionary is. Wikipedia needs to be built on multiple secondary sources. This is not happening with this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference book returned, as described in the nomination, has a bibliography section for each artist bio. It's not visible on Google Books, but compare to the bibliography for the previous entry in the book. It seems premature to delete the article without verifying whether there are further sources below the bibliography header.--Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the source for the entry in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary turns out to be "Alvarez, Jose Rogelio, et al. Enciclopedia de México. Secretaria de Educacion Publica, 1987," so this would seem to meet WP:ANYBIO.--Jahaza (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Netherzone's comment; passes WP:ANYBIO. Mahdiar86 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 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 any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 17:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips[edit]

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

Despite the very impressive list of roles, they're all support roles or trusteeships, with only CUP presented as a CEO position. Coverage is passing, CVs or corporate announcements. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME - "Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable." CUP is not FTSE listed . Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, News media, and Business. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest a weak keep. I do appreciate that this is a good-faith nomination that will probably lead to much healthy discussion; and it's tricky, because the majority of information about him is indeed various corporate announcements. However, I think we need to look at the bigger picture. It is not right to view CUP from the perspective of a FTSE 100 company. Its significance isn't measured by share value and pounds. Its significance is two-fold; firstly it is one of the five main UK examining boards, which makes the CEO position extremely influential in UK education (and outside UK too). Secondly, the CUP is the world's oldest publisher and printer, and it gave up actually printing things during Phillips' reign, which means our readers may have curiosity about who was in charge at this historically-meaningful moment. His trusteeships are not run-of-the-mill (Nuffield foundation; can't get much more influential than that). We would accept him as notable had he been editor of a journal, and yet as CEO of a publisher of many journals, and former president of The Publishers Association we don't. If he'd been any one of the things he'd been, I'd happily delete, but his career has tentacles in so many parts of UK education, media and health, and at such high levels, that I think it almost expected we should have something to say about him. And it's impossible to reduce him to a redirect, because there are too many targets. The difficulty is making sure that the sourcing for an article about him is good, and not entirely press-releases, given that this sort of career creates a lot of routine press. Elemimele (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As AfC approver I will not vote but I would like mention that I approved it based on the notability of CUP which is also the Queen's Printer and was granted letters patent in 1534.Gusfriend (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To note that CUP is one of the world's biggest and most influential academic presses (only Oxford is larger), and that Phillips is now CEO of the larger merged Cambridge University Press & Assessment, with a combined turnover in excess of $1bn per annum, notwithstanding the wider academic and cultural significance of the organisation. Suggest keep. Cmdcam01 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Cmdcam01[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. Star Mississippi 15:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 L'Open 35 de Saint-Malo[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. No GNG type sources and use of the SNG wp:seasons way in requires primarily prose as an indicator of such which this misses by far. The only reference is their own website. Tagged by others for such issues since May with no references added North8000 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, and France. ––FormalDude talk 07:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No national coverage in French sources, only local coverage in Ouest-France or on tennis websites. Would appear to be a low-level tournament. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources don't have to be national in scope or "general interest" for them to count towards GNG. In my searches I have found [27] [28] and [29], which along with the sources Oaktree b mentions (but does not link to) should be enough to meet GNG. The nominator should also be well aware that GNG passing sources don't need to be in an article for an article to survive NPP (they only need to exist). Iffy★Chat -- 20:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I limited my searches to only .fr websites and get: [30]. First one in Ouest-France is [31], "Five good reasons to go to the open 35 de tennis this weekend", appears to be a brief mention of 5 good things at the tournament. [32] talks about the opening of the tournament. I didn't think they qualified as substantial articles, mostly brief mentions. Other mentions of the Kinesiologists at the tournament and how local students are going to it. Nothing terribly notable about these articles, reliable, yes, substantial, no. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your sources. I've now also found [33] (more significant regional coverage of the tournament) and [34], showing that the tournament received TV coverage in addition to the text sources we've been discussing. Iffy★Chat -- 11:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Henriklars (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think the sources linked by Iffy as well as the other sources that are referenced above which exist but aren't in the article are enough to get this one over the WP:GNG line. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 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. Previous PROD. not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Senior Secondary School Chabutra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. There are some news links which mention the school, but nothing in depth. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and West Bengal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. 174.93.92.251 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 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. Star Mississippi 15:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toon In with Me episodes (2022)[edit]

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

No evidence that either of these pages meets WP:LISTN. I could see an article about each TV season (i.e. like Grey's Anatomy (season 17)) assuming it is significantly covered in RS and is not better covered at the main article for the series. This list is not such an article and entirely lacks independent perspective, failing WP:NOTPLOT. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of episodes are usually encyclopedic, but these are effectively unsourced, and the "plot summaries" are likely copyright violations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simple plot summary is not a copyright violation, or thousands of movie review sites, newspapers and blogs would be infringements. I've worked with Disney's copyright approval people on animation related projects, so I have some experience—this isn't a valid fear. It's only an infringement if it reproduces footage/audio. Ramapith (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the episode list doesn't fit in the main article for the notable series, it is acceptable to have a spinout article to hold the valid content. This however is just a copy and pasted official description of episodes found on IMDB and elsewhere. Dream Focus 04:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To have episode lists for shows that premiere daily to be broken up into years is not an uncommon practice. Since this nomination was posted, and after previous editors have commented, I have added a substantial amount of sources to each episode list. As for the summaries, the list of featured cartoons takes up space and can create the appearance of too much plot. In reality each's episode is only aground 1 single sentence each, which is far from excessive.Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the show just a guy and his puppet introducing classic cartoon shorts? Dream Focus 06:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is so much deeper than that. It is a true life changing masterpiece. It is the greatest thing mankind has ever created. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I detect sarcasm Dronebogus (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. How does this meet WP:LISTN? Frankly, most lists of episodes are problematic. What's the difference between a TV guide and an encyclopedia again? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
m 67.3.133.7 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
j 67.3.133.7 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caladbolg[edit]

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

Send this one to PROD and was reverted, with an invitation to take it to AFD. There isn't significant coverage of this object in reliable independent sources, which means it fails WP:GNG. The current state is completely WP:OR. It's not that I think there is zero coverage based on WP:BEFORE / WP:POTENTIAL, but there is not enough coverage independent of the fiction to write a meaningful out of universe article. Jontesta (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of significant scholarly discussion. I've added some, and will follow up with more later. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Good start, but righ now WP:SIGCOV is not shown. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fergus mac Róich. Currently fails SIGCOV GNG requirement for stand-alon article, IMHO. But this has potential to be rescued, and I hope Nick will ping we when they are done with their expansion so I can reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As part of a WP:BEFORE exercise I have found (and in some cases added) several sources which support a claim to notability. From what I can find, several chapters of several books (from several authors) are dedicated to the subject. And, in at least one case, an entire book seems to be. Personally I think there is more than sufficient coverage of the subject (as a stand along topic) to warrant a standalone article. If others disagree, then - at the very least - the relevant content should be merged and the title redirected to a sub-section of the Fergus mac Róich article. While, personally, I don't think a merge/redirect is the right course of action (as it confuses the connection with other subjects, like Gáe Bulg and Caledvwlch and others), outright deletion is definitely not appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Ireland. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reconsider this AFD in light of recent editing to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work but (altogether now) AfD isn't cleanup. Sourcing is there, you don't wanna go messing with Irish mythology... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Guliolopez. Finnegas (talk) 10:52, 8 July 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sashi Cheliah[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO basics, mostly a WP:BIO1E person only known for being a winner of a reality show, which generally fails GNG guidelines. Suggest redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 10) instead. SanAnMan (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Television, and Australia. SanAnMan (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED. All of the independent significant coverage is from the time of the competition win and therefore fails BLP1E. All of the other sources are either trivial, unreliable, or lack independence. On a side note, I support the nominator's decision to not use a multi-AFD and nominate these individually for procedural reasons.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cheliah returned to Masterchef in 2022 and got coverage from that, making it more than one event. Maintaining a profile with coverage such as Galletly, Jessica (31 January 2021), "Sachi's master stroke", Sunday Mail (Adelaide). Also got coverage last week for an upcoming launch of a restaurant in Chennai "A MasterChef's Chennai debut", The Hindu (Chennai, India), 24 June 2022. There is also a (really bad) review of his restaurant in Lethlean, John (22 February 2020), "REVIEW", TheAustralian. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Interviews do not meet the WP:SIGCOV standard, as they are not independent of the subject. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appeared in multiple seasons of the program, winning one of them. Satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duffbeerforme. The claim above that interviews don't meet WP:SIGCOV is nonsense - the policy says nothing of the sort, the only thing on WP about interviews is an essay (not a policy) that sometimes you need to be careful in considering them as a reliable source with significant coverage because they may be publicity type material. There is no suggestion that that is the case here. Deus et lex (talk) 08:25, 7 July 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 instead of keep as there's some valid concerns about the sourcing. That said, a consensus to delete the material is not going to develop. Star Mississippi 15:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Takchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO basics, mostly a WP:BIO1E person only known for being a winner of a reality show, which generally fails GNG guidelines. Suggest redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 11) instead. SanAnMan (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Food and drink, Television, and Australia. SanAnMan (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources, seems to have ongoing notability after the show, if not the most clear-cut case in this group. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Seems to just about meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Barely meets it.. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED. All of the independent significant coverage is from the time of the competition win and therefore fails BLP1E. All of the other sources are either trivial, unreliable, or lack independence.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Takchi is maintaining a profile with coverage such as Byrne, Fiona (2 May 2021), "Wedding of the week", Herald Sun and Moustafa, Abi (29 September 2021), "Bun in the oven! Former MasterChef winner Larissa Takchi announces she's expecting her first baby with husband Luke Dominello", Daily Mail Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Interviews do not meet the WP:SIGCOV standard, as they are not independent of the subject. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme, meets WP:SUSTAINED. The claim that interviews don't meet WP:SIGCOV is wrong - there is no policy to that effect, it is an essay merely warning users to be careful because some interviews can be promotional. There is no suggestion this is the case here. Deus et lex (talk) 08:27, 7 July 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. With concerns about the validity of the target, a redirect is not a valid AtD in this case. Star Mississippi 15:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondences (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator with reason "It is a notable journal in the field, listed in Directory of Open Access Journals and funded by the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism. Furthermore, important scholars such as Wouter Hanegraaff have published in the journal." None of this, including the trivial content that was added at the same time, are proof of notability and this still fails NJournals and GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable journals, fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the article should be deleted. the Directory of Open Access Journals is selective, as they only accept journals that meet high quality standards and exercise peer review. Furthermore, the fact that it is funded by the ESSWE and listed on their website is significant. The ESSWE is the most important scholarly society in their field. Simply measuring the article on the basis of WP:NJournals is no argument for deletion. This essay has no official status within Wikipedia. Anyway, I will try to improve the article a bit the following days. Schenkstroop (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DOAJ is near-trival. The only criteria are that you are open access and that you aren't predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 1/ ESSWE: the citation to ESWE is rather trivial, they list a great many resources and what "they" say is actually stuff copied verbatim from the journal's website. 2/ NJournals is designed to make it easier for academic journals to become notable. But you're right, it's only an essay (albeit one that has been used as a guide to notability for journals for a decade or so), so you're free to ignore it. In that case, the article needs to meet GNG, which only very few journals do. But if you can find a few sources independent of the journal that discuss it in depth, you're done and I'll withdraw the nom. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, delete it. Schenkstroop (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this journal is non-notable and not indexed in any selective database. There is lack of independent sources to support the standalone article at this point. The journal fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG.~ Nanosci (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism#Publications.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the publisher, and is a bad target for a redirect. That's just some organization that partly funded the journal for a few years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 July 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 due to rough concensus. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billie McKay[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO basics, mostly a WP:BIO1E person only known for being a winner of a reality show, which generally fails GNG guidelines. Suggest redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 7) instead. SanAnMan (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Food and drink, Television, and Australia. SanAnMan (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have completely dropped out of the public eye shortly after her first season aired before reappearing for the current series. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. All of the independent significant coverage is from the time of the competition win and therefore fails BLP1E due to WP:SUSTAINED. All of the other sources are either trivial, unreliable, or lack independence.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BLP1E does not apply. McKay won Masterchef in 2015, was a mentor in 2019 and is competing in 2022. Each of these attracted coverage. She has maintained a public profile outside those periods such as a publicised 2017 visit to India as reported in South Africa, "India visit for chef McKay", Post (Durban, South Africa), 29 November 2017. Other articles from the tour include "Love chocolates? The Fat Duck chef Billie McKay tells what goes on inside Heston Blumenthal's kitchen", Financial Express (India), 17 November 2017 and "MasterChef - Australia says Indian food is adventurous", New Indian Express (Chennai, India), 18 November 2017. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appeared in multiple seasons of the program, winning one of them. Satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme. St Anselm (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every winner of MasterChef Australia has a Wikipedia page, and there is no reason McKay shouldn't. McKay won series 7, and is currently in the Top 3 of series 14, still in contention for the title. This high level of excellence in the competition is enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, regardless of how hesitant McKay is to share her personal life. McKay is also one of the most popular contestants amongst fans, and won one of the most popular seasons in the history of the show. WP:SUSTAINED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.86.109 (talk)
Keep per duffbeerforme. Easily meets WP:SUSTAINED. Deus et lex (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duffbeerforme, there is sustained coverage of the subject including outside of her participation in Masterchef. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar Prasad Guragain[edit]

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

Mayor of a medium-sized city. Does not pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nepal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor notability, fails WP:NPOL. 174.93.92.251 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom. Mccapra (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable politician. DIVINE 08:42, 10 July 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 procedural keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BNS Jamuna[edit]

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

Trying to add refs, I have found nothing to support the article. Fails WP:GNG basic. Hence nominated. Will happily withdraw the nomination if anyone can add satisfactory refs to support the article. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will happily withdraw the nomination if anyone can add satisfactory refs to support the article. Please see: WP:DINC and do not disrupt AfD to make a point here or with Geostubs. Star Mississippi 02:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Racial tension in the United States[edit]

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

These topics are covered elsewhere on the project and this is duplicative. Bruxton (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TNT this is an important article however it shouldn't be a bunch of links Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written stub and it is not needed. There is already Racism in the United States which provides the actual context. Centralknights (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Covered already in the other articles linked, as noted, and overall too broad and vague a title. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A3. It contains only see also links, and is not a disambiguation page]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per all comments above, plus it is not a viable set index page either per WP:SETINDEX. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:52, 10 July 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. Overall consensus is the coverage is not quite sufficient to meet the "significant" criterion, though I expect this article may well be back before very long if Thiel continues to play. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Thiel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:SIGCOV, and fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Only trivial mentions in references. --Gri3720 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople--Gri3720 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This user clearly has not done WP:BEFORE. These four sources [35], [36], [37] and [38] passes WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that two articles about player (and several others) constitutes a general notability. You are correct about one thing, however; I do not consistently go around nominating articles for deletion as I do not feel it is productive to the overall benefit of Wikipedia as a universal source of information.--Gri3720 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 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 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search here has brought about clear WP:GNG passing coverage, which is unsurprising for a fully international player in 15s and 7s who participated in the Olympics. Afd is not clean up. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source only has a 42-word paragraph devoted to him, which fails Wikipedia:One hundred words (and even the more lenient 50 word threshold mentioned in the essay). The second source literally boils down to "Thiel was injured", so that fails even worse. The third source is borderline SIGCOV (74 words) but seems to be a blog. The fourth one is also borderline merely mentioning him and giving a few quotes by him) but even if we count that that is only one source. The other sources on the page are not convincing either (the Canadian Olympic Committee is not independent of a Canadian Olympian, and the CBC link only mentions Thiel in a list). 2 borderline SIGCOV sources with one questionable reliability is not enough for GNG. 12.148.188.220 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your 100 words link, ". Fifty such words would likely be significant.", in article one the word count is higher than 50. Not sure how you came to 42. The third source is not a blog. Its the official website of Rugby Americas North, the international governing body of the sport in the continent. That with the fourth source is enough to justify WP:GNG, yet alone the first two among others. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. Sources do not address the subject "directly and detail" as required by these guidelines. All of the sources linked above are trivial mentions, with the primary focus being on the wider issues not Thiel himself. The Abbynews source has only four sentences directly about Thiel in the entire article, with the majority of the article devoted to coverage of the wider Canadian Rugby team heading to the Tokyo Olympics. This Americas Rugby News has only two sentences. TSN has one sentence. The Times Colonist piece is an interview, which therefore lacks independence from the subject and cannot be used to prove WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG. Essays are neither policy nor guideline and just because one person comes up with an arbitrary number and writes an essay about it doesn't make it anything more than someone's opinion. And in any case it's irrelevant as Sportsfan mentioned because the sources have more words than that. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Local boy makes it big"-type coverage doesn't count for much, especially when it's just a few sentences. Two sentences organized in a "paragraph" doesn't make them SIGCOV. And no matter how much content there is, if it's contained within quotes from the subject or an associate it is not independent coverage and does not count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But all four sources do pass WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...how? When is two sentences ever SIGCOV? Captain Phil Berna and vice-captain Jake Thiel return from injury to bolster Canada's squad for the HSBC Spain Sevens in Malaga, but coach Henry Paul still has a lengthy list of absent players... Thiel was injured in Dubai, where the Canadian men finished 11th and 12th. Passing mentions like this don't count toward GNG for other bios, why should they for sportspeople? JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is about the article and another subject, meets GNG. The second source is a toss up. The third source is about the subject (the title) and lastly the fourth source is an entire bio on him by the largest newspaper on Vancouver Island. The combination of these sources clearly demonstrates coverage has been met. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter at all if the subject appears in the title of an article, or if the article is ostensibly "about" the subject, or even the prestige of the source; if there isn't significant coverage of the subject within the article it cannot contribute to GNG. And quoted/"he said this" content from an interview also never contributes to GNG. The point of SIGCOV isn't just to show that other people have given a subject attention (e.g. appearing in headlines, being interviewed, being mentioned in a major publication) -- it's to show they've received attention and substantial, in-depth, independent commentary. GNG isn't supposed to be an indicator of notability, it's supposed to actually establish it. The first source has a two-sentence blurb on him -- if this was sufficient to count towards GNG any high school state champ from somewhere with two newspapers would get a pass. The second is clearly routine injury coverage that does not count towards GNG. The third is another two transactional sentences in what seems to be a group WordPress blog. The fourth has half a sentence "introducing" him, with the rest being straight quotes. Does not count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source analyses above. The fourth source is mostly his own quotes, and the third and second obviously do not have in-depth coverage. The first is the closest there is to SIGCOV, but without multiple sources meeting that requirement, notability isn't established. Avilich (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article also passes WP:NRU. A team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, World Rugby Sevens Series, Commonwealth Games, or. Thiel has competed at the Rugby Sevens Series and is scheduled to compete at the 2022 Commonwealth Games. All four sources listed above are more than trivial mentions of the subject imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well it doesn't matter if he passes NRU. And again, interviews like that do not count toward GNG, and routine transactional coverage is excluded from meeting NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a quick google search I easily found a few more articles about this player (one from 2011, when he and his twin brother were still schoolkids). This article is another example. Maybe someone should make an effort to find more sources to expand the article? Ruggalicious (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first article is hyperlocal coverage of his middle school performance, which fails WP:YOUNGATH. The second is an interview with very limited independent secondary commentary. Quotations from the subject/affiliates and primary descriptions never contribute to notability, so that leaves us with ~4 sentences that have the author's own thoughts or background. Not enough for GNG yet. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles were only examples of articles found by a quick google search. My point is that on top of the articles already cited, there are probably more valid sources to be found if someone takes some time to do the research, also because this player has represented his country in the World Rugby Sevens Series for 5 years now and in the 15-men game at Under 20 level. Ruggalicious (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More local youth coverage or interviews, probably. Avilich (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Namulindwa Kigozi[edit]

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

Head of marketing at a probably notable company. The ceo might be notable , but not lower rank executives. The refs are promotional notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly, totally unremarkable exec. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Treminio[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable; the only sources I could find are press releases, interviews, and podcasts. The AP source in the article is paid content copied from another website. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source that looks reliable, AP, is actually a press release: SOURCE: Rudy Treminio Vexations (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 5 July 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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Mattfeld[edit]

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

She belong to non notable actress and possibly UPE by the creator of the article. I don't see anything rather blogs and Nigerian fake newspapers. User: Gartuwaso 12:51, 05 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a bad faith nomination. The "creator" of this article merely created a redirect and is an editor in good standing. It has been extensively edited by others since, including myself - so I don't know who the nominator thinks might be a UPE. No substantiation about the sources either, the most cited source is this which is a newsletter of a respected organization. MB 00:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You only provided one reference which you claimed to be reliable source but isn't really reliable source, and even if it's reliable it has been use more enough in the article (Almost 4 times) and the remaining references which were reused are highly non independence reliable source and no any significant coverage.Gartuwaso (talk) 01:38, 05 July 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 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with MB's comments. Not a single shred of evidence of UPE has been presented or of use of "fake newspapers." Lack of WP:BEFORE by the nom is noted as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. 174.93.92.251 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep bad faith nomination, revenge nom by Gartuwaso based on my nomination of their articles for deletion. I can assure you I wasn't paid for this (or anything else for that matter) and I only created a redirect. But Mattfeld is notable at this point under NACTOR, though I have no objection to this being returned to a redirect as I do agree the sources aren't stellar, but they also aren't "nigerian fake newspapers" (lmao) PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears clearly you are inviting your friends to comment on keep. I have no revenge on you as no any article is nominated for deletion by you. Nonetheless, if you succeed in this nomination case, I will definitely appeal it where real and unconnected administrators will look at this article which totally fail notability of living person. If you invite your friends here to comment Keep it may consider as meat puppets as I can see MB and other commenting. If Wikipedia is really independent platform this article with definitely going to be deleted. So, also concerning the UPE,it appears that the person whom you created this article had paid you or possible connection; if not why are you exhausting your time inviting your friends to comment Keep while they know it's not notable. Google search show nothing but full of Nigerian fake newspapers with no significant coverage. User:Gartuwaso 11:07, 06 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you back this up with evidence or take it to ANI, otherwise you're just casting baseless aspersions and I'll be requesting a block of your account. PRAXIDICAE🌈 11:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your request will not work, if it's not UPE why are you exhausting your time depending non notable actress like this. I must appeal if you succeed by inviting friends and using anonymous user by commenting to keep. Any responsible and well judge editor know this article is non notable actress but some editors are depending her without giving any genuine evidence. Google search shows nothing but full fake Nigerian newspapers. A lot of drafts were declined and are suffer notable than this actress but were declined. I'm waiting for your report. I don't even know you are the creator of the article till when I responded. User: Gartuwaso 14:58, 06 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about UPE, but on the substance of the article, it appears to falls short of NACTOR. Only one major role, minimal coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gege Gatt[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill lawyer, AI researcher. Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opinion pieces in the Times of Malta, rest are press-releases/name drops. Nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Law, and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pay After Getting Job[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Is this actually a thing anywhere outside India? If not, it ought to be specified. In either case, the references I could find are scarce and rarely WP:RS, but then again, I don't read Hindi. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a subsection in an article about universities or post-secondary education in India?. No sources elsewhere found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Education. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Draft: This is currently failing WP: GNG. I think this is an interesting topic to have an article on Wikipedia. But this is not written in an encyclopaedic tone and needs lots of rework on it if it is made. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 16:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Tree Planted[edit]

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

Coverage is just brief mentions/namechecks. Fails WP:NORG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are all press-releases. Paid-for editing is a concern also. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Vermont. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG due to lacking significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk)
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:NORG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 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. SNOW in July. Star Mississippi 17:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Bioresearch Ltd[edit]

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

WP:SERIESA and WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The only WP:RS references are articles by, rather than about, the company. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my discussion at User_talk:Ingenuity#innovative_bioresearch_ltd_page. I can find hardly any reliable sources, and nowhere near enough to meet WP:NCORP. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional very reputable news outlets covering the research. DaneDN (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. references are scientific publications, and news articles covering the research like this one from one of the most notable medical news outlets http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That'd make it WP:PRIMARY and hence ineligible. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also added another very good reference from Aktien - Börse - Aktienkurse (wallstreet-online.de)

Innovative Bioresearch Announces Publication of Pioneering Pilot Study Exploring SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Cell-Based Therapy for HIV in Humanized Mice - 26.04.2016 (wallstreet-online.de) DaneDN (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Added additional sources:

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/

https://www.tecnomedicina.it/archos-collabora-con-innovative-bioresearch-per-promuovere-safe-t-min/ DaneDN (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

·Do not delete. The INNBC cryptocurrency is very popular. I feel the need for more crypto experts to chime in before we can say this page should be deleted. Diodellecrypto (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's definetively articles about INNBC. You are not doing any digging.

https://www.investorsobserver.com/news/crypto-update/innovative-bioresearch-coin-innbc-rises-66-69-outperforms-the-crypto-market-monday Diodellecrypto (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't. Most of these people seem only here for negative\meaningless comments, never provide any actual help searching sources. DaneDN (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_News_Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneDN (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaneDN: The nature of the sources forms the key objection to WP:NCORP notability. Not only should the sources be reputable, but they must also operate with an independent fact finding voice. Also per WP:CORPDEPTH, the coverage should be non-routine. Sources based on what the company or its principals says about it, including interviews (e.g. Cryptotrends), are not considered independent. Announcements like wallstreet-online.de are not considered routine in nature, lacking necessary depth. That one also looks more like a press release. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Medical News today disclaimer they claim this:

"Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy."

It is crystal clear that

1)Medical News today is a very reliable source.

2)They are independent - meaning they only publish news if they find them relevant - they do don't do paid nor promotional articles. They are absolutely a fact finding voice, moreso as they are a medical newsoutlet and must provide accurate medical news.

3)They used the peer reviewed academic research as a source of data, and any claim or announcement the compay have made woud have not been mentioned had it not be judged of significant impact in the field, newsworthy and legit.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source:

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/

Please explain why this article by IRISH TECH NEWS is not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you say goes against what is claimed by the journal policy. I suggest you to carefully review their eidtorial policy, specifically these points:

"At Medical News Today, we’re committed to providing trustworthy, accessible, and accurate information so our readers are equipped to care for their health and wellness. We use an established editorial process to ensure we’re providing the best possible information.

Our editorial process is the backbone of everything we do. We use this process to make sure that everything we publish meets our high standards.

Our team creates and edits every piece of content based on the four pillars of our editorial process:

1.learning and maintaining trust

2. keeping high journalistic standards

3. prioritizing accuracy, empathy, and inclusion

4. monitoring and updating content continually

These pillars ensure that our readers can always find the timely, evidence-based information they need."

In addition to explain why is Medical News Today, one of the most important medical news outlets, not an indendent source, can you also explain why Wat is Innovative Bioresearch? - Newsbit is not not considered independent as well?

Although Medical News Today makes all these statements about itself, the article reports about an effective product announcement (pilot study/progress report). The article is based entirely on what a company principal says. Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH, this definitely fails the depth of coverage test, even if it passed the independence test (questionable). The article is written in marketing-speak supported by primary and business buzz references. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an interview, it is a news article covering the company. DaneDN (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Italy, and United Kingdom. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable crypto startup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Innovative Bioresearch Ltd is not a crypto start up. It is a pharma start up founded in 2014 that did not produce any blockchain related product before 2018. They expanded their activity in the blockchain space but they remain a pharmaceutical\biotech start up developing drugs and therapies for HIV and Cancer. DaneDN (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the article is based on what THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW ACADEMIC PUBLICTION SAYS. Without the peer reviewed publication as a source, they would never report any info. In fact, they cite the publication (Article: SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Possible Cell-Based Therapy for HIV: Results from a Pilot Study in Hu-PBMC BRGS Mice) as a source of info for the article itself.

Now, Added another source:

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/

Please explain why this article by IRISH TECH NEWS about Innovative Bioresearch, its biomedical research and its blockchain applications s not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source:

ARCHOS collabora con Innovative Bioresearch per promuovere Safe-T min - Tecnomedicina

Please explain why this independent source covering the activity of Innovative Bioresearch such as cooperating with big electronic companies such as Archos is not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DaneDN seems to be a SPA promoting this company, which of course throws up the usual concerns of WP:PAID, WP:COI and others. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. https://www.tecnomedicina.it/is a news outlet specialied in pharma and tech news, which independently covered the news. They have not been paid to report this news. Do you have any evidence to back up such a bold claim? Tecnomedicina - Innovazione e tecnologie digitali al servizio della medicina e della sanità is a very respectable and reputable Italian news outlet and they reported the news because Archos is a very big company.

Also please explain why this news coverage by IRISH TECH NEWS is not valid.

https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/ DaneDN (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technomedicina.it: Lacks CORPDEPTH as yet another company announcement composed of what the company says. Irish Tech News: a listicle entry that is a restatement of the company's noble goals. Not very deep and zero depth about the company. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1)You fail to provide evidence that https://www.tecnomedicina.it is promoting Archos or Innovative Bioresearch. Such a bold claim needs some serious evidence. Where is the conflict of interest of Technomedicina.it by covering this news? In no way are they affiliated with Archos nor innovative Bioresearch. They covered the news of the cooperation between Archos and Innovative Bioresearch. They describe the deal, confirming that it is real, not just reporting what the companies say, but they explain to the reader what the deal is about. They also describe the kind of application Innovative Bioresearch is developing,using their own words and not reporting what the company says: "Innovative Bioresearch sta costruendo un’applicazione basata sulla tecnologia blockchain. Consiste in un database decentralizzato per i dati clinici e in una piattaforma sociale per la comunità sieropositiva dell’HIV. Consente a medici e pazienti di tutto il mondo di condividere e accedere a informazioni cliniche consolidate al fine di iniziare più rapidamente prove e trattamenti diretti." This sentence was wrote by the journalist and not by the company.

2)Irish Tech News is providing some bullet points to highlight what are the most significant developments of the company in the field. They made their own research before reporting this information. The fact that those goals are defined as "nobel" is a personal, independent, opinion of the journalist who wrote the article. They describe the medical initiatives operated by the company and conclude that those are "nobel, important humanitarian goals", nowhere is cited the company saying those goals are nobel, as this is a persoonal opinion of the journalist. In fact, one could argue that it is the opportunity to generate substantial profits by developing an HIV cure that is driving the company and not a humanitarian spirit as this is not a no profit company. They talk in enough deep detail of the blockchain application developed by the company, describing it with their own words and not reporting what the company says. DaneDN (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing coverage and all the back and forth above, RS coverage is sizzle, not steak, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. With almost zero depth of coverage about the company, the article is a crypto project masquerading as a company profile. The subject biotech with minor published research, that aims to be yet another "disruptive tech" company. Stenographic journalism doesn't add up to notability. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Although Medical News Today makes all these statements about itself, the article reports about an effective product announcement (pilot study/progress report). The article is based entirely on what a company principal says. Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH, this definitely fails the depth of coverage test, even if it passed the independence test (questionable). The article is written in marketing-speak supported by primary and business."

This is the core of your wrong assumption, which seems due to a lack of education in science. Science is not based on opinions but hard facts. As such, it is not "what a company principal says" that is reported here, it is WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS SAY. The only part of the Medical News Today article where they mention the company announcing the publication of the study is in the beginnig "Innovative Bioresearch has announced the publication of a pioneering pilot study in the MDPI journal Vaccines". This is it. After that, they cover the results of the study. This means they summarize the study findings, using the study abstract as a source:

"The animals were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI followed by weekly SupT1 cell infusions as an HIV treatment over a 4-week study period. Analysis of the results revealed some interesting tendencies in the generated data, such as significantly lower viral replication (~10-fold) and potentially preserved CD4+ T cell frequency at Week 1 in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion. Of note, one animal exhibited a sustained decrease in HIV replication and CD4+ T cell depletion (no virus detected anymore at Weeks 3 and 4), a result that may hold the key to future HIV treatments."

Now, this is clearly sourced from the study abstract:

"In the present work, the previous in vitro model was translated into an in vivo setting. Specifically, Hu-PBMC BRGS mice were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI (100,000 TCID₅₀), and 40 million 30 Gy-irradiated SupT1 cells were infused weekly for 4 weeks as a therapy. Blood samples were taken to monitor CD4+ T cell count and viral load, and mice were monitored daily for signs of illness. At the earliest time point analyzed (Week 1), there was a significantly lower plasma viral load (~10-fold) in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion, associated with a higher CD4+ T cell count. At later time points, infection proceeded with robust viral replication and evident CD4+ T cell depletion, except in one mouse that showed complete suppression of viral replication and preservation of CD4+ T cell count. No morbidity or mortality was associated with SupT1 cell infusion. The interesting tendencies observed in the generated data suggest that this approach should be further investigated as a possible cell-based HIV therapy.'

Medical News Today article is not based on "what the company principal says", it is based on what the results of the exeriments say. such results are not an opinion but the result of approval and validation by the peer review process. If the company principal would mention results different than what reported in the study, they would absolutely not report it. They would stick to what is reported in the peer reviewed study. DaneDN (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also not PubMed nor Peer reviewed. As such, you have no scientific credibility to judge or talk about the biomedical research performed by the company and define it as "minor". If not, please provide the link to a review article published on a peer reviewed journal where you describe the research findings of the company as "minor" and such article has been accepted for publication. If the research has been published on peer reviewed scientific journals, it means the editors of such journals decided the research is relevant and scientifically sound enough to be published. You are not part of the peer review system, nor you have such qualification. Can you provide evidence of such qualifications? Please leave out any persomal bias and opinions and stick to the facts. In their main study, SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Possible Cell-Based Therapy for HIV: Results from a Pilot Study in Hu-PBMC BRGS Mice - PubMed (nih.gov), they report that "In the present work, the previous in vitro model was translated into an in vivo setting. Specifically, Hu-PBMC BRGS mice were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI (100,000 TCID50), and 40 million 30 Gy-irradiated SupT1 cells were infused weekly for 4 weeks as a therapy. Blood samples were taken to monitor CD4+ T cell count and viral load, and mice were monitored daily for signs of illness. At the earliest time point analyzed (Week 1), there was a significantly lower plasma viral load (~10-fold) in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion, associated with a higher CD4+ T cell count. At later time points, infection proceeded with robust viral replication and evident CD4+ T cell depletion, except in one mouse that showed complete suppression of viral replication and preservation of CD4+ T cell count. No morbidity or mortality was associated with SupT1 cell infusion. The interesting tendencies observed in the generated data suggest that this approach should be further investigated as a possible cell-based HIV therapy."

You must admit that by defining peer reviewed HIV research as "a crypto project masquerading as a company profile" you are really grasping at straws. There is hard, undenaible evidence of the fact that Innovative Bioresearch is a pharma company that is performing HIV cure research. The company is also expanding their research using blockchain technology. But that does not change the fact that the company is producing actual peer reviewed science and as such it's a pharma\biotech company. The issue here is the lack of understanding that official science is only those present on peer reviewed publications. You fail to realize that any secondary source that is not backed by a scientific publication as a primary source cannot be considered legit. Now, you also fail to aknowledge that one of the most important medical news outlets, medical news today covered the news of such finding describing them with enough detail https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017 as well as that they would never cover such info had it not being included in a peer reviewed scientific article. The source is reliable, independent, and does not lack notability. Science is not about opinions but hard facts. Any interpretations, analysis, comment that is made by a newsoutlet about a scientific study will pose the danger of being misleading because it has not been validated by peer review. This is why most medical news outlets have the tendency to stick to the facts and report exactly what is reported in the peer review studies, without adding much personal analysis. Such analysis could seriouly hurt patients, as well as not being ethical to make important claims that are not being validated by peer review.

DaneDN (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) A decent source analysis would be more useful than a wall of text; (2) the article currently reads rather like a brochure for the company, to the extent I was verging on a TNT even if the company is notable; (3) too many of the sources are primary literature from the company's founder; (4) to the intelligent-but-uninformed reader, the article fails to explain why blockchain cryptocurrencies are related to pharma development; (5) the Medical News Today article, whatever their editorial policy, doesn't inspire confidence: it is written by (no name) on an invalid date, and states quite openly that it is based on a company announcement. I am teetering on the brink of a delete here. Elemimele (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1)A big issue here is a fundamental lack of understanding of the peer review process and what is considered official science, which is evident by some comments. As such, the need for introducing some concepts in greater detail.

2)I am just reporting the official infomation sourced by the scientific publications and news articles found online, If you have any suggestion, instead of just trying to censor, vandalize, and delete information, contributing would be much more appreciated.

3)Such literature contain data that has been validated by the peer review process and as such it is universally accepted by the entire scientific community as part of the official scientific literature. This means that several peers, which are leading experts in the field, reviewed the paper and all the experiment data, requested modifications and\or revisions if needed, and every single statement, data, sentence, every single word present in the paper had to be approved by them, after being ultimately approved and accepted by an acamedic editor. Any claim that is made in the paper with regard to the data had to be approved as scientifically sound by the peer reviewers and editor before being accpeted. Therefore, this is not the result of the work of a single person, but ultimately the result of a process that involved the effort of several leading experts in the field, who contributed to the final revision form of the article. The academic Editor for this article, Diane M. Harper, is an internationally recognized virologist. Given that, each publication also features multiple references supporting the claims made by the author. Now, given that the company founder is a research scientist who firstly conceived this approach, it is quite normal that most of the scientific literature concerning the in vitro and in vivo testing of SupT1 cell infusion therapy is the result of academic publications made by the author. However, I also added publications from other authors on SupT1 cells now.

4)I was under the impression that this was explained in this sentence:

"INNBC is serving as a digital payment system to access all the products and services developed by Innovative Bioresearch Ltd, as well as supporting their development. As such, INNBC is a "DeSci" (decentralized science) token, decentralizing several aspects of biomedical research, from the funding of the research itself, to the sharing of the scientific data." I added a further explanation.

5)The confidence is inspired by the fact that Medical News Today is sourcing the data from the peer reviewed study. As such, we know for sure they are not 'making things up" but rather reporting info that has been previouly validated by the peer review system. The journal itself is very reputable and even if the name of the author is not mentioned, that does not substract from its general good reputation as medical news outlet. In addition, the date is not incorrect, it is reporting the date of the source "Vaccines, doi:10.3390/vaccines4020013, published 26 April 2016." It is also not stated anywhere in the article that the source is based on a company announcement, the source is clearly provided at the bottom of the article as the peer review academic publication. The only official source for scientific data. As per their policy, "Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles." They clearly say they link the source at the bottom of the article, the peer reviewed paper is linked at the bottom. DaneDN (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so if I accept the medical news today article as a genuinely secondary commentary on the primary article released by Fior, that's one bit of evidence the company is notable, based on having produced one good idea a while ago. But we've still got an up-hill struggle here. For example, the NewsBit story says the company is based in the UK, but it's listed at Companies House as a dormant company with almost no assets. Maybe NewsBit is wrong, and it's massive in Italy? I still think it's iffy: yes, primary scientific literature is peer-reviewed, which we regard as making it reliable, but given the truly enormous quantity of primary science papers published per year, we can't guarantee notability to a company just because its founder has published some papers. We need at least to check their citation rate, which I haven't done, on the grounds that if they're highly cited, Fior himself might be notable. But if he founded a company based on a few papers before 2014, and the whole thing fizzled, then from a bio-science point of view, there is nothing to write about. I don't know enough to assess the relevance of cryptocurrencies. Elemimele (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official info provided in the scientific papers, the company is registered both in Italy and UK. This paper was published in 2014 reporting this affiliation: "Innovative Bioresearch, Milan, Italy." The same company was also registred in the UK in 29 May 2018, according to company house. From my understanding and from the info reported on the official website, the company was started in Italy, then they expanded and opened a UK branch when they started their blockchain actvity in 2018. It is possible they perform the research activity in Italy, and the blockchain activity in the UK. If they decided to issue a crypto asset as an alternative to selling stocks, it would just make sense to keep the company dormant as they are not actively trading any conventional asset, just the token, which is not a security. With regard to the notability of a research paper, one way to misure that is the altmetric score. According to the altmetric score of their main research paper:

"This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 715. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2022.

Altmetric has tracked 21,480,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric."

Being included among the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric strongly suggests notability for the research and as such for the company being mentioned for the research they performed. DaneDN (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (1) Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low [39]. (2) Although the NewsBit article states the company is based in the UK, companies house says it has been dormant since its foundation and never had any assets greater than £100. Thus we're left with basically three sorts of sourcing: a handful of barely-cited research papers, a Medical News summary of one of those papers, and a NewsBit article that claims existence of a UK company that in reality doesn't exist. There's no sign of the company having any product except the Crypto thing (about which I defer to crypto experts) but from a biological/medical perspective I can't find any notability whatsoever. Elemimele (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low"

This is not true. This paper alone has 23 citations, which is considered a very good number for a scientific paper. DaneDN (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1)Are you ignoring on purpose the altmetric score because it does not fit your narrative?

Altmetric has tracked 21,480,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric. Altmetric score is a very important parameter regarding notability. Research quality is a multidimensional concept. Citation is one parameter, which does not reflect several key dimensions of research quality. Even though what you say is not even correct, as just the paper on cancer by Fior has 23 citations, a very good number.

2)The official website says the company operative office is based in Italy and they only have a UK branch. In this interview with CEO he says the company is based in Italy (Interview with CEO Jonathan Fior, Innovative Bioresearch - YouTube) so it seems the NewsBit article has incomplete info. This is also confirmed by other sources reporting the company as an Italian company https://profit-hunters.biz/it/innovativo-bioresearch-revolyucionnaya-Baza-klinicheskix-dannyx/ Why are you ignoring such information? Also, the fact is that being dormant does not mean the company is not actively producing products (in fact, it is releasing many applications as it got featured among the top 5 start ups impacting Decentralized Research) it just means they are not trading company stocks. You need to learn the difference between equity and cryptocurrency. Even though the company set their equity value as £100 (which is purely indicative as it is only when a company goes public selling stocks that an official evaluation is done with an external institution like a bank providing the real value for the company stocks), this has nothing to do with the value of their cryptoasset, INNBC, which can have value of several million dollars, nor it indicates the company isn't actively developing products, especially given that, as reported by the official website and scientific papers, the company operative division is located and registered in Italy.

DaneDN (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added an additonal source indicating notability for the company, as it has been featured among the "5 Top Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research". Please provide explanation why this additional source is not valid. Please provide explanation why being indicated among the top 5 Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research does not indicate notability.

5 Top Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research | StartUs Insights (startus-insights.com) DaneDN (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to me just a promotional article. I fully concur with all the motivations brought forward by various users for deletion. P1221 (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe so, why don't you contribute the article by editing and rephrasing it into what you believe is a more neutral description? Instead of just wanting to delete information as a priority, why not also putting contributing as an opportunity to improve the information reported on wikipedia. DaneDN (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I would like to change my proposal to delete and salt owing to the activity of a SPA with COI or undisclosed paid editing who is heavily promoting this article (DaneDN). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exacly am I promoting the company? Am I suggesting to invest in this project? Absolutely not. I am just reporting the information I collected from various sources. Please provide some examples and suggestions as this article is open to any contribution to be improved. Provided that you are willing to do any contribution at all, which seems unlikely. DaneDN (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you report incorrect information and assume they are correct, due to a lack of knowledge in a specific area, and think this is acceptable? For example, this paper alone by Fior has 23 citations, which is considered a pretty good number for a scientific peer review paper. To give some context:

"How many citations is considered good?

What is a good number of citations? With 10 or more citations, your work is now in the top 24% of the most cited work worldwide; this increased to the top 1.8% as you reach 100 or more citations. Main take home message: the average citation per manuscript is clearly below 10!'

Yet, you say that "Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low". This is just plain flat out wrong. And it's just one example. DaneDN (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not wrong. Fior's top paper has 23 citations, his 2nd has 4. I invite you to compare this with a genuinely notable scientist; I used Ute Roessner, at [40]. Note that her top 20 papers range from 225 upwards. There is nothing magical or special about her example; almost all scientists who qualify as notable in Wikipedia terms will have multiple papers in the top 1%. But I'm not going to argue the toss indefinitely; this whole AfD is beginning to look like bludgeoning. I came into this with an open mind, looked around, and found no notability. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is just wrong if you claim that this is an "extremely low number of citations". It is just flat out wrong with respect to the average number of citations considered by the scientific community as a highly cited paper. The general consensus among scientists is that "the average citation per manuscript is clearly below 10".And Fior's paper has more than twice this number. There is nothing magical or special about claiming that scientists in the top 1% have papers with more than 200 citatioms, as this is not what we are dicsussing here. We are not discussing about including Fior among the most cited scientists on Wikipedia. We are discussing the fact whether with respect to the average number of citations for a scientific article, 23 citations is considered an extremely low number as claimed by you. And, it is not, according to the scientific community.

Finally, I also invite you to consider that relevant studies in the field "found no statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the mentioned researchers. We also did not find any evidence that the scientists with better WP representation are necessarily more prominent in their fields. In addition, we inspected the Wikipedia coverage of notable scientists sampled from Thomson Reuters list of ‘highly cited researchers’. In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly. "

"Consequently, we establish that for a non-professional reader who turns to Wikipedia with an exploratory purpose of finding some prominent researchers in a field, the encyclopedia might be misleading, as it provides no reliable visual cues that might be a proxy of academic notability. We conclude that the absence of correlation between Scopus and Wikipedia metrics suggests that they measure different phenomena.'

Which is why you should not ignore the scientific standard if you want to improve the representation of what is considered scientifically relvant on wikipedia. DaneDN (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, the discussion here is not about the creation of Fior's wikipeda page, but whether Innovative Bioresearch as a company along with InnovativeBioresearchCoin (INNBC) as a cryptocurrency have notability. As such, you should not ignore all the sources added strongly indicating notability such as the company inclusion among 5 Top Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research DaneDN (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like good at first, but nope. wp:gng ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also looks like a crypto scam and spam 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
99% of cryptos are called scams. It is so trendy. But, actually, they are more legit than you, given that you are here anonymously, while they put a name of what they are doing. DaneDN (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaneDN: This crosses the line into personal attack territory. Anonymous IP editors are as welcome at AfD and on the Wikipedia project as the pseudonymously registered editors. AfD comments are weighed by basis in policy and editor experience. Questioning an editor's legitimacy for an opinion or calling an edit vandalism because you do not approve is not acceptable. Challenge the argument, not the editor. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This crosses the line into public defamation territory against the company. Claiming publicly that a company is "a crypto scam and spam" is a criminal defamation offence. And it can be punished by law. Protecting yourself against the law hiding behind anonymity does not make your activity as a wikipedia editor more legit, especially not more than a business that is not conducted anonymously as in the case of Innovative Bioresearch. DaneDN (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scam: Unfair? Yes. Defamation of a crypto project? Good luck with that. Legally actionable? This isn't the venue. Besides, another part of WP:NPA is no legal threats. Spam: That's a label that looks increasingly applicable. You too are anonymous and Wikipedia policies grant the registered user more privacy protection than an exposed and traceable IP address. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a business a scam\fraud means intentionally damaging its reputation. As such, it can be considered public defamation. You should not abuse the wikipedia privacy protection to commit a criminal defamation offence. DaneDN (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. See definition there of trivial coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, NCORP and reeks of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also happy to salt and require going through AfC to recreate. Based on WP:NCORP and Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies). Uses INNBC as a reference which is a primary source. Adding in research papers by "Fior, Jonathan" which can also be seen as a primary source. Then there are the references that are routine coverage and you are left with sourcing that is insufficient. Gusfriend (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read the discussion here and on Ingenuity's talk page and reviewed the sources. They're all problematic in one way or another; non-reliable, primary, press releases, just a whole bunch of noise but nothing worth being said. The article fails WP:GNG by virtue of lack of reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and fails WP:NCORP outright (especially when factoring in WP:NCRYPTO). - Aoidh (talk) 17:08, 11 July 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 Robotic vacuum cleaner#List of robotic vacuum cleaners. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge sourced material. No clear reason to delete first Star Mississippi 15:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BObsweep[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robotic vacuum cleaner. This gets some coverage, such as reviews in PC Magazine and USA Today, but not finding much else in terms of significant coverage. The USA Today source is written by a staff writer (link) but is a bit promotional in tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and add to Robotic vacuum cleaner#List of robotic vacuum cleaners. PK T(alk) 17:35, 6 July 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.