The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Policy-based input from established editors makes it clear that Meesho does not meet the guidelines for companies. With regard to the GNG angle, passing mentions especially that are not clearly independent do not really add up to GNG, so this wouldn't pass via either route. Star Mississippi 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meesho[edit]

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

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

Lacks reliable media sources. Most of the links provided deal with investment or acquisition deals. And seems like page was created by someone that was affiliated to the company. NancyAggarwal1999 (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that this just barely passes WP:GNG. I think the Wp:THREE are ^[1][2][3]. As for the WP:NPOV issue, it does seem to be a bit promotional but I don't think it is overtly so. Possibly draftify so that the NPOV issue may be fixed. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response This is a company therefore NCORP applies. None of those references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Forbes reference is based entirely on an interview with the founders (a "puff profile") with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Techcrunch comes with a health warning for notability - WP:TECHCRUNCH - and this article is no different. It is another "puff profile" relying entirely on company information or "told me in an interview" content with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Check our how remarkably similar this article is from the previous Forbes article for example. Finally the Livemint reference is based entirely on what "the company said on Tuesday". It's regurgitated/recycled press release material - check out the exact same quotes and largely the exact same information in this from the Economic Times and this in Fashion Network. All fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do a lot of cleanup. There is very little independent material about the actual business activity of the company (because articles on this topic are all interviews with company personnel), but there are many sources about numerous founding rounds. Of course, promotional tone will have to go. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the funding section has too much info and needs to be summarized, but i agree that the company meets notability guidelines. Zeddedm (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was able to find over 20 articles through Wikipedia's library regarding the company's business activity, and here are several of them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Although I was unable to see the pages, the company is covered on three pages of the 2021 version of International Directory of Company Histories (pages 295-297). This passes WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Firstly, sources provided by GoldMiner24 and Heartmusic678 pretty much clarifies that the page passes WP:GNG. Secondly, yes the funding section requires a clean-up to upright the promotional way it looks. Lastly, I think the company is notable enough to be there on Wikipedia. ManaliJain (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Article easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:CORP. Although it needs some brushing to improve neutrality, cursory Google search shows that Meesho is quite notable in the Indian ecommerce space. There are like 7-8 sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Moreover, it has a unicorn status. To me, this deletion looks like an attack on the company. Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It must pass WP:ORG, so we should not talk about any other guidelines. 8 Sources are shared in this AFD page.Here we Go...Adgully is not a reliable source. campaignindia is not reliable, not independent, not even in-depth. Similarly ET, mediannews4u, dfupublications are not having any byline (not independent), Techcrunch, Talkmarkets are unreliable sources. Infact, majority of them are not reliable sources, not a single is in-depth source. All 3 sources shared by GoldMiner24 are vague. Forves is not even about the company, other 2 are not considered reliable. Behind the moors (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Behind the moors. Some of the sources linked here are unusable in general, let alone on a company article. In addition, from the article - TechInAsia is exclusively made up of quotes from founders. Same with techcrunch (from around the same time), but with additional content about business model that repeats company lines. Fortune India is a bit better, having talked to people from outside the company; but even that article suffers from essential facts being sourced to the founders and may only count for partial NORG notability. The rest of the refs are purely routine funding/product announcements. As the company is unlisted, analyst reports are non-existent on public web. Hemantha (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I note editors saying it passes GNG above - that is not the appropriate guidelines, please see WP:SNG (which is a section in GNG)

• Assuming all the sources are reliable (except if obviously not such as a Blog or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
• As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
• WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
• "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. WP:SERIESA (while an essay) appears to be particularly apt in this case. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company is mentioned in some of the RS that indicates its notability, passes WP:CORP.ZanciD (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)·[reply]
• Keep Meets NCORP with sources like [9] [10] [11] [12]. One of the most downloaded apps in India [13] [14] and globally [15]. Often cited as the "pioneer" of social commerce in India [16] [17], and last valued at $4.9 billion [18], so not a run of the mill startup. M4DU7 (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As already mentioned above, the SIRS sections of NCORP says that each reference must meet all the criteria - that includes CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. There may also be some confusion over the difference between sources that may be used to support facts/information within an article and the tougher criteria for sources used to establish notability. Just because a source may be used to support a fact/information (passing WP:RS) does not mean it also meets the criteria for establishing notability.
    • This from Forbes India is a standard "puff profile" exhibiting all the usual signs of "describe problem, AHA moment, early struggles, breakthrough, funding, growth and future-hopes" topped off with the obligatory photos. There isn't a single piece of inn-depth "Independent Content" in this article, all of the content relies entirely on information and quotations from the company/founders/funders. Every paragraph includes a quote. Fails WP:ORGIND
    • This from Money Control has a byline of "Moneycontrol learns from sources" and none of the sources providing information are identified. The article relies on 11 or 12 (!!!!) anonymous sources - this is not the basis for any article, this is not reliably sourced information and wouldn't pass the criteria of WP:RS. Cannot be used to establish notability.
    • This from Business Standard is another "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders. The only "Independent Content" in the article is the "Expert Take" section which falls well short of WP:CORPDEPTH criteria as it merely poses a question and challenge to the topic company in the future, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
    • This from India Today is a lead front-of-cover "puff profile" magazine story on the topic company and the founders that relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND
    • This from Business Standard talks about the app, nothing about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
    • This from Money Control also talks about the number of downloads of the app, nothing about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • This from Business Standard is more of the same, talks about the number of downloads of the app, fails CORPDEPTH
    • Fortune India provides a "puff profile" on the founders/company, same standard format as mentioned above including the obligatory photo, fails ORGIND.
    • This from India Express is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH (and probably ORGIND)
    • This from Business Standard is a short article (14 sentences) which essentially provides a short intro to the fact that the company had a fresh funding round. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

The test has nothing to do with it being a "run-of-the-mill startup" or a "billion dollar unicorn" - we need to see references that discuss the company in-depth providing independent analysis/investigation/etc *without* relying entirely on repeating/regurgitating innformation provided by the company or being a "puff profile" on the success story. So far everything we've seen has been firmly within the echo chamber of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets NCORP, per sources providing by keep voters.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Just a reminder that consensus is not a vote counting exercise and there is very little attempt to find a consensus here, no engagement or debate. There are also a number of inexperienced editors or dormant editors who have suddenly reappeared !voting here who may be less familiar with our guidelines. Pinging some of the Keep !voters GoldMiner24, Anton.bersh, Zeddedm, Heartmusic678, ManaliJain, Adamsamuelwilson, zanciD and M4DU7. to justify their !votes. Some incorrectly used GNG as the guideline - this is a company so NCORP applies. Others say that the sources meet the NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've provided reasoning above on each reference as to why they fail our NCORP criteria. Nobody has engaged with this analysis to debate it or to attempt to refute it. Ginbopewz says above that it meets NCORP as per the sources but fails to provide any meaningful justification. I've also analysed these very same sources and shown that they fail NCORP - perhaps that editor or some other can point to specific passages in a specific reference that meet NCORP? Can any other editors do the same? Particular attention should be paid to the definition of "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found this Bloomberg Quint article:

• Sharma, Nishant. "Meesho Is Turning Housewives Into WhatsApp Entrepreneurs". BloombergQuint. Retrieved 2022-03-08.

It has intellectual independence as the "Caution Ahead" section contains independent analysis and doubts about the app. Along with the International Directory of Company Histories Volume 226 reference noted by Heartmusic it may be enough (I also can't read it, but can verify there is an entry, and the directories entries are generally ORGCRIT compliant). But the article is also in a poor state so I'm not inclined to cast a hard vote. Jumpytoo Talk 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Except the "Caution Ahead" section contains no in-depth information on the company. Also there really isn't any "independent analysis" worth shaking a stick at as you've stated. At best maybe there's a single sentence? So long as nobody figures out that those sentences simply echo the quotes from affiliated persons.... But I take your point on the book, could be a good reference (and most likely is) although we need multiple references. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your analysis of the Bloomberg piece. There is 5 paragraphs of independent & in-depth coverage of the app by expressing concerns about how the app is vulnerable to competition though aggressive expansion into underserved regions and that the quality of the products of poor impacting sellers earnings, which is supported by information from Priyanka who is a Meesho seller and two expert analysts: Ankur Pahwa from Ernst & Young, Satish Meena from Forrester Research. I found no evidence either of the expert analysts or their companies have ties to Meesho, and the Meesho seller is only cited to support doubts about the app so I consider her an independent source. I understand that usually company =/= it's products but here Meesho is the companies only product so I consider them the same entity. The article could be converted into one about the app through normal editing. Jumpytoo Talk 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute (website)[edit]

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

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

Per WP:NOT § INTERNET we observe that “Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner. The article furthermore is not discussed in in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore the website fails to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. A before search turns up no reliable sources, the sources observed are either user generated, self published, or sources with no reputation for fact checking. Note that the article doubles as both a website and an organization. A clear WP:NCORP fail as well. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like the page has substantial coverage in reliable sources based on the page's references. The features in The New Yorker,[19] and Inc.,[20] and decent amount of coverage in NPR,[21] seem like they meet WP:GNG. I can't see anywhere that they're user generated or self published. It looks like they're regular staff articles. (Edit: Adding New York Daily News article([22]) BuySomeApples (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m afraid I don’t see where WP:SIGCOV is met, the first source isn’t discussing the website in itself thus SIGCOV isn’t met. The second source is literally not loading. The third source isn’t even about the website, literally, it however mentions them but it relies on the organization see a portion of the source “ Tribute says it was the first, starting in 2015. Its prices range from $29 for a DIY version to $100 for the full-service "concierge" option, which includes all the editing, plus perks like email reminders for contributors if the sender sets a deadline” That is blatant advertising/ relying on a source not independent of organization thus can’t be counted as a reliable piece. See WP:ORGIND & WP:COISOURCE. To further expatiate on this point, I find them adverting(spamming?) and track them down to a Nigerian website (Nairaland) (blacklisted here) advertising their services. There is literally no source (independent) that discusses the website in accordance to what is contained in WP:WEBCRIT. I’m not seeing SIGCOV in reliable pieces, for example in the article I note this source which has the byline as the name of the source, this is either an op-ed (guest editor) or an opinion piece by the Editorial either way, we do not put credence to opinion pieces nor op-Ed’s not properly attributed, I’m sorry but there are no reliable pieces that discuss this website. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, the first source is about the founder founding the company, which is close enough for me tbh since the page is about both the website and the company. The second one loads fine for me? See if the archived version works better. The majority of the third article is about the site, but I get what you mean about the writer sourcing info directly from the company. Do you mean that you found the company spamming on a Nigerian website or the editor who made the page? If it looked like the company I wonder if that was some kind of scam. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there, I'm the creator of the page and have reviewed your helpful comments. I do understand the concern over the sources in question, as they reference the company and founders more so than the website itself. I have replaced the first and third sources with sources that directly discuss the website itself with more in-depth coverage. As for the mention of the Nigerian website spam, that is something that I'm completely unaware of and was not my intention to use any blacklisted sources. Can you please clarify this? Thank you and please let me know of any other concerns that can be addressed in order to avoid deletion.Hattiedog (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by BuySomeApples. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article could use some improvement, but WP:GNG is met, and a merely imperfect article doesn't require deletion. Yitz (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor antenna[edit]

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

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

Sad little article, effectively unsourced and much better though still unsourced coverage in the main article, Television antenna. delete this, redirect to main article. Roxy the dog. wooF 20:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DAB or Redirect to Television antenna#Indoor. I agree that indoor television antenna can be appropriately covered at the suggested target, but the less-specific term may be ambiguous, as there can be other antennas that are indoor and not used for television. —Ost (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with Ost316, in that a better term may be more helpful to users who are looking for information about indoor antennas. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirecting to Television antenna is not a suitable solution since indoor antennas for radio reception also exist, particularly the folded dipole constructed from twin-lead [23] which can be nailed to a skirting board. Particular topics can be redirected to a more general one, but we shouldn't redirect a general topic to a particular one. SpinningSpark 20:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. Being a stub isn't a good reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV per SpinningSpark's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted time[edit]

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

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

Article does not have any references since 2007. I've tried to find some, and "Trusted Time" does not seem to be a widely used technical term. You see it appearing in phrases like "a trusted time stamp", meaning a time stamp that is trusted. The only place I have seen "Trusted Time" used as a phrase directly, is in an English translation of a Chinese document. (I also know something about the technical topic of NTP mentioned on the page, and the text about NTP does not really seem to make sense.) David Malone (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I found an encyclopaedia with a "trusted time" entry: ISBN 9781599043869 page 700. However, that encyclopaedia doesn't match the load of old hooey in this article, including the risible nonsense about the Freedom of Information Act and time sources. That encyclopaedia article cites doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5.ch054 as its source and István Mezgar's original article matches it pretty much word-for-word. But no-one else independently documents (rather than just plain copies, as the IGI encyclopaedia, from an author with a PhD in business administration, does) Mezgar's concept. So this article as it stands is unverifiable, and a wholly rewritten article based upon Mezgar would not be an idea that has actually escaped Mezgar and been adopted by other people. This fails both the verifiability and the no original research policies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Trusted time is an important issue and is disussed in numerous sources in relation to networks (for example [24]), cryptography (for example [25]), and navigation (for example [26]). I don't know whether Uncle G is right about the sentence on Freedom of Information Act and liability, but it is certainly true that there are regulatory issues surrounding trusted time in some jurisdictions (see [27]) and the sentence is easy enough to remove if we don't like it. Deletion is not cleanup. SpinningSpark 08:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paper by Daryl only uses the phrase "Trusted Time" in the title to mean time that is trusted, rather than a specific term. The word trusted only appears once in the actual body paper, in a generic sense. The second paper by the FAA only uses the phrase "trusted time" one in the paper, again not to mean any specific technical term, but again, time which is trusted. The book only seems to use the phrase "trusted time stamp", in a general sense, rather than a specific technical term. (When the book talks about standard technical phrases, it seems to uses caps, like Trusted Computing Module or Trusted Third Parties). So, I don't think any of these show it is a standard concept worth documenting. David Malone (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew that someone would do the phrase search without looking at the following word. For shame! One of your sources is actually about Position, Navigation, and Timing (which is in its title, no less!) and happens to use the phrase "trusted time synchronization" once in the entire document. Another says "trusted time server", i.e. an NTP server that is trusted. Ironically, one only has to read as far as the second section of your "regulatory issues" paper, past the background section on Coordinated Universal Time and International Atomic Time, to find that it is about "Digital time stamps", i.e. trusted timestamps. And the one that only matches the "Toward Trusted Time" title of the paper is in fact about the error rates of NTP stratum 0 servers, which is of course grist for the mill in Network Time Protocol#Clock strata. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about trusted time sources. The Cao and Veitch paper examines whether NTP Stratum 1 timeservers are reliable. How is that not about this topic? David Malone, I don't care how many times the paper uses the phrase and a strict technical definition of a topic is not necessary for a Wikipedia article. The essential requirement is that the paper is about the topic which I would argue it is. I don't know what FAA source you are referring to; my second source is the The Kang et al. source. This makes it clear that trusted time is key to their methodology and they repeatedly discuss trusted time servers. Which are trusted time sources. Uncle G, I don't understand why I should be ashamed of offering a paper with "Position, Navigation, and Timing" in its title. The full title is "Time Source Options for Alternate Positioning Navigation and Timing". That's exactly what I said the paper was about; the importance of time sources in navigation. SpinningSpark 11:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The paper I referred to as FAA is "Time Source Options for Alternate Positioning Navigation and Timing (APNT)" - it's on the FAA website, and is your third reference. Sorry for not being clearer. Personally, I am not convinced these papers make a good case for the existence of this article. There are already pages on NTP and Time Servers and the timescales that they measure agains such as UTC and TAI. There are also pages on protocols that issue trusted timestamps and define exactly what a trusted timestamp means in this sense. You could propose a notion of trusted time that combined all these notions, but that would seem to count as original research. David Malone (talk)
        • The need for a trusted source of absolute time in navigation is nothing new. It goes all the way back to the story of longitude and chronometers – three centuries back. This is a subject whole libraries of stuff have been written about. Timing over internet is one solution discussed in the paper I provided, so there is at least some sourced overlap of the navigation and network time topics. So no, I don't agree that it is OR to treat them in the same article. SpinningSpark 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never heard that called trusted time - that's UT0, UT1, UTC and their relationship to earth orientation. The issue there is mainly the accuracy of the time source, clock and time transfer, not trust. I have quite a number of books on the topic! I think we'll have to agree to differ and get some other opinions. David Malone (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There don't seem to be any (significant) sources for this concept. The closest perhaps is the Cao and Veitch article, and although there are numerous controlled and uncontrolled keywords and subjects that have been assigned to that article, "trusted time" is not among them. It looks to me like the article on ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard covers this nicely, and that we don't have sources for a stand-alone article. Lamona (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This page has been tagged for NO SOURCES for a dozen years. There's a discussion above about sources, none of which have been applied to the page. None of the sources discussed seem to directly detail the subject. A reasonable search finds nothing substantive. This article may be about a notable subject but we have no sources from which to determine this. Failing ANY sourcing, delete. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Vijay[edit]

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

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

sourced entirely to paid for spam/black hat seo - non-notable vanity spam and contributor pieces. CUPIDICAE💕 18:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The artist is notable enough now having only reliable references which are independent from the topic and passes WP:GNG. Even the nominator himself removed almost entire references. StyleArt (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every source I've reviewed was written by "news desk" or something similar, suggesting that their all press releases or some other kind of paid PR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO , I don't see independent in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added reference and removed some promo content. I think its passes WP:BASIC. 47.9.136.253 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)— 47.9.136.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here approaching direct detailing by RS. Despite the nattering of likely paid or connected contributors, this fails GNG and ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoram Symons[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No links to realize WP:GNG policy. WP:BIO is also not realized. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jagvir Goyal[edit]

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

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

I didn’t find any coverage in reputed websites that are written about him. Hindustan times article is written by himself only.person who created this only created this page and never ever edited any other page at all! Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:BIO. Lack WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nicki Minaj#Fragrances. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Friday (fragrance)[edit]

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

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

I think this fails WP:GNG/ Much of the coverage is primary sources like twitter or retail sources like Amazon. When that is removed, not sure what purpose the page has other than promoting the project and being largely promotional. Artists release endorsed products - don't see anything particularly noteworthy here that couldn't exist at the artist's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Business. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nicki Minaj#Fragrances. The fragrance is not independently notable, but this is a plausible search term. ✗plicit 01:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nicki Minaj#Fragrances. Insufficient sourcing to warrant own article. Minaj's first signature fragrance, material certainly can populate the relevant section of the BLP. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Reclosing this case after mistakenly closing it "Soft delete". This was not appropriate so I have now closed it as a straight "Delete". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V. C. Agrawal[edit]

V. C. Agrawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t think he started any of what he is director etc of. This way, there are so many big companies. All big companies leaders are not notable. Even if this person would have started something of their own, then also they should not be automatically notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, Engineering, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly press releases about his appointment and name drops in company announcements. Lacks independent and non-trivial to meet WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. Chitty Babu[edit]

T. Chitty Babu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All news about their company and not exactly them. News about company also look like regular announcement. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: fails WP:BIO. - Hatchens (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View (non-governmental organisation)[edit]

Point of View (non-governmental organisation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is run by important and notable people. But I feel there is not enough coverage of their own work. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filadelfia Bible College, Udaipur[edit]

Filadelfia Bible College, Udaipur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable educational institute. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a college offering degree level qualifications. Such colleges are typically fairly small, because they do not offer other courses, but that does not make them insignificant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Question is not if they are significant. Question is if they are notable for wiki policies. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Given sources are either related or dead. A WP:BEFORE did not give any in-depth sources. The Banner talk 14:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's a difference between something being "significant" and being "notable." In this case the college might be the former, and that's a pretty strong "might be", but it clearly isn't the later. So there's zero reason to have an article about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.U. College, Falna[edit]

S.P.U. College, Falna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable educational institute. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are more sources when you search for the full name of the college: "Shri Parshwanath Ummed college", but they are mostly databases of colleges and primary sources. Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Exact Philosophy[edit]

Society for Exact Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Attempts to find independent reliable sources yields only trivial mentions (mostly along the lines of "this paper was first presented at the nth annual meeting of the Society for Exact Philosophy"). The only exception that I could find which provided in-depth independent coverage of the society is "The Society for Exact Philosophy" by Francis Jetfry Pelletier in Ruch Filozoficzny. However, one article is not in-depth coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources, which is the requirement set by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and nom. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This org is verifiable but insufficiently sourced applied to warrant any sort of keep assertion from me. A reasonable search doesn't help. Not every org is notable. BusterD (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find (as I often do) Uncle G's argument persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etna, Utah[edit]

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

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

By and large the small town articles I've looked at thus far in Utah are downright paragons, but there are a some questionable ones. In this case the most I can determine was that there was a post office here, and that as a larger locale it covers a mining district. At the location, though, I find nothing. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I found an article in the Box Elder News in 1972 that called Etna and Lynn both reservoirs and fishing retreats. Another thing about Etna being a reservoir. Here's a mention of a dam and reservoir. I've also found some obituaries listing people from Etna. This has a mention of a man who was "a herder in the Etna area". wizzito | say hello! 08:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Small recognized rural community, based on the two sources I've added. More of a distinct community 100 years ago than now, when these sorts of communities had their own schools.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference for the school is simply a passing location mention. It doesn't even prove that there was a school "in" whatever Etna was. And as a "community" is not a geographical thing, I really have to insist on it meeting WP:GNG directly, which this clearly does not, not when we're having to scrounge for fleeting mentions in local papers and the like. As it is, we have a vague area served by a 4th class post office, and we consistently have deleted those as not meeting WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I went through my usual methodology on this one. We need a source to tell us what this was, because "unincorporated community" is Wikipedia's information-free cop-out from the GNIS's "populated place". Lippincott's gazetteer has nothing. The relevant Arcadia Publishing was Topping & Ferguson 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFToppingFerguson2009 (help) which also had nothing. Finally I found Van Cott 1990, p. 131 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVan_Cott1990 (help) which puts the lie to "is an unincorporated community". What it was, and is not now, was a post-office that postmaster Charlie Morris named after Etna Creek. And — lo! — there it is, in the 1930 United States Official Postal Guide. And the GNIS has it under "Etna Creek" as "stream". Yes, you may well find reservoirs and fishing on a creek.

  Checking the original 1937 History of Box Creek rather than the derivative 1996 one, the fact that this is a creek becomes glaringly evident. Yes, it was known as West Fork because that's actually a common U.S. name of a tributary of a creek before it gets its own name. Unfortunately for the "but school district!" argument, the name of the area is actually right there on page 297, immediately above the sentence talking about Etna Creek and the school. It says Grouse Creek, the creek that Etna Creek is a west fork of.

  • Topping, Gary; Ferguson, Melissa Coy (2009). Salt Lake City, 1890–1930. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738570747.
  • Van Cott, John W. (1990). "Etna". Utah Place Names: A Comprehensive Guide to the Origins of Geographic Names : a Compilation. University of Utah Press. ISBN 9780874803457.
  • Walker Forsgren, Lydia (1937). "Grouse Creek". History of Box Elder County. Box Elder County Daughters of the Pioneers.
• Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing the sources we have:

• GNIS, which is not reliable for whether a place was populated.
• My Topo Maps - Maps cannot be used to show notability per NGEO, and anyway this source does not actually show any map.
• Google Maps - GMaps is partially a mirror of wikipedia, and also just includes names from GNIS, and is anyway a nap and cannot be used to show notability per WP:NGEO
• A History of Box Elder County, p.332 - This seems a pretty solid source giving significant coverage of a settlement at Etna, albeit very small.
• Box Elder News Journal, 1914 - A bare mention of the Etna school.
• Box Elder News, 1972 - A bare mention of the Etna reservoir.
• Box Elder News Journal, 1970 - Essentially a list of people who attended the opening of fishing at the Etna reservoir, WP:MILL coverage.
• Garland Times, 1977 - Bare mention of Etna Dam.
• Box Elder News, 1977 - Bare mention.

• The 1996 history gives clear coverage of a settlement but this is the only source produced that does. Without legal recognition for a GEOLAND#1 pass I would typically be looking for at least one more source, but the description of the 1996 history is clear enough that I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that Uncle G's research cast doubt on this history as the 1937 history (which I don't have access to but they do) does not appear to describe the same thing. Without any actual significant reliable coverage I'm leaning delete on this one. For the avoidance of doubt post offices and schools are not automatically notable so simply showing that there was a post office or school (which can be located anywhere, including outside communities) does not make this notable. FOARP (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with the 1996 history is that having read the earlier stuff, it is quite clearly a conflation of all of the earlier stuff, that doesn't cite its sources. The more contemporary sources indicate that Grouse Creek was considered the overall area, with Etna Creek part of it, and Etna the "populated place" per the GNIS was in fact the Etna post-office, which is a building and makes something a "populated place". (GNIS phase 1 didn't really use the "post office" feature class, because the methodology didn't involve consulting the sort of things that would say exactly what the place was. Phase 1 was all about indexing the maps. If at least one building was there, it was "populated place".) Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Uncle G is usually right about everything and it warms my heart to see them active again but I honestly can’t work out if they want to keep or delete this page, so a further relist for them to clarify their vote or others to chime in will definitely provide more chance of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the sentiment, but I also appreciate others double-checking the research. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a populated place. No sign of notability under GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Band Pacino[edit]

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

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

There is no WP:RS about him. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - His murder received some news coverage, but per WP:VICTIM that does not qualify him for an article. His music, where notability really matters per WP:NMUSICBIO, received no coverage and is only visible in the usual streaming and social media services, and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NMUSICBIO his murder did get some coverage but per WP:VICTIM as noted above does not qualify him for an article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply Group[edit]

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

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

Hard to locate the references for it to pass WP:ORG. Just acquisition and investment news. Juggyevil (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article about an investment vehicle firm, itself a subsidiary of another (on which there is no article here which could serve as a redirect target). Such coverage as exists relates to transaction announcements, which routine coverage falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, and tends to focus on the IHC parent anyway. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOcean[edit]

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

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

Hard to locate the references for it to pass WP:ORG. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of notability in references to article as currently written. Also reads promotional. Gusfriend (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourcing appears to be adequate to establish notability. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article about an investment vehicle, summarising their incoming funds and investment portfolio. A previous article about this firm was discussed at AfD in December 2020 and then deleted; the comments in that discussion seem equally applicable to this new instance. Both funding rounds and investment announcement coverage fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH; nor is being one of the first round investors in MariaDB Corporation inherently notable. I don't see any reason to diverge from the December 2020 AfD consensus that this topic fails to meet the WP:NCORP criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Rafiq (actor)[edit]

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

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

Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. I can't see lead roles or any significant work. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Rafiq and Draft:Am (you'll need to view the history of the draft). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable meet notable criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TOOSOON for an article. Not enough significant roles to show WP:NACTOR, and the sources aren't there for general notability. I did some cleanup to remove unsourced BLP and found that one article was basically used as three different sources (different publishers, one was direct copy and the other paraphrased). Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep not delete this is the ref link and a reliable source that proves he is a verified influencer link of his profile https://www.amazon.in/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AHUNLCJSU7BNAMD3SPFZPFDIIJOA?preview=true,he also have a verified facebook page ,and have relevant news sorces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, he has a verified profile. That's it. He may want to call himself an influencer, but absent solid reliable sources - not a blog, not a scraper, not a BS site, not Amazon, Wikipedia will not help puff up his resume. Ravensfire (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not paid for article dear Ravensfire i just tried my best to put all reliable source but it seems that suspision is a big issue on article made through afd editors are not searching for the article sources on google i think just giving there feedback the actor did lead roles in the project and did prominent characters in tv & films and have relevant media source on main stream media and the article on pinkvilla and its content from the heading to the last is different that why i used that for reference and pinkvilla is a mainstream media of bollywood film industry they only publish article for notable actors not for everyone i have search google news about the aamir rafiq actor its quite decent and cover by good news channel of tv and film industry he have been part of big bollywood films and did good character — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Keep: i believe that article has enough news sources on reliable main stream media which easily qualify {wp:actor} category and notability ^[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No indication of notability at all. No significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been gone through various deleted projects there is a project name ahan shetty which was considered for deletion and deleted by raising he is not a known actor and not meet wp actor criteria ,he was lead actor actor in tadaap ,has various news on unlimited main stream media ,i guess no body is google about the ref and dod not add any ref hence the articke was deleted ,now i am coming to my point ,Aamir Rafiq who is famour for jhansi ki rani ,paramavtaar shri krishna ,his name in the news for these projects over and over ,those character was much liked my audience that is why i guess media news publish about him,on times of india ,pinkvilaa ,tellychakkar ,bombay times ,spotboye and many more ,the actor was seen with akshay kumar in fortune oil add and also on the cover with him on print for the same add, he has been seen in jammu & kashmir tvc which was the biggest budget add ,the actor doing projects on lead roles and parallel ,still he not a notable actor,aamir rafiq has verified social media account facebook page and verified amazon influencer,you cannot get verify untill your a notable enough ,the actor been seen doing paid partnership adds with addidas ,marks&spencers,veet,collaoborate with sarnaya umakanthan for promitimg her novel one day life will change on paid partnership on instagram. _aamir_rafiq , if hes doing alot of main stream work and did film with national and international director rupesh paul ,and did a prominent character in rocketry the nambi effect ,in penalty as cameo ,and featured in show khul ja sim sim with aman verma , and who has been the show stopper for the biggest show of nesco for brand RUSK india. Who have numerous reference, then how he fails the wp criteria and an notable criteria i strongly believe that this article should not be deleted by audience, Keep this article !.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metas Opas-iamkajorn[edit]

Metas Opas-iamkajorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Quite clearly WP:TOOSOON. While he already appears to be an online celebrity of sorts with over a million Instagram followers and has appeared in entertainment news columns,[28] what's known about him so far is mostly in relation to his more notable brother, and notability is not inherited. This will probably change with his upcoming works, but until then, the notability guidelines aren't satisfied. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete is solution here. 1st neither the series is notable till now, 2nd even if it is then he needs to be a lead actor in mulitiple series of movies. Juggyevil (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:TOOSOON at best, and possibly an A7-speedy deletion candidate as the article stands now. No better sources found. --Finngall ^talk 17:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Weber[edit]

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

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

Fails the notability criteria. All unreliable sources or the interview. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Fashion, and Hong Kong. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are not enough independent reliable secondary sources giving in depth coverage of this person to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My search for GNG-qualifying coverage was similarly unsuccessful. The only sources available seem to be unreliable and/or not independent. Perhaps it is just too soon, but in any event Weber does not meet the GNG or any relevant SNG at the moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Existing !deletes here and WP:G5, creation by WP:SOCK who was previously indef blocked. —Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjib Sarowar[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. Not a notable muscian. Juggyevil (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as lacking sufficient coverage to meet inclusion requirements. (Stay tuned to this channel for further developments.). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NMUSIC and GNG.Slywriter (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G4 by User:Liz. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajeet Bose[edit]

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

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

Non notable actor, fails GNG, WP:NACTOR. The page is repeatedly created. Behind the moors (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, clearly fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine C. Ladish[edit]

Lorraine C. Ladish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is autobiography by Lcladish13 (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Lcladish (talk · contribs), and I suspect also Thebestwriter13 (talk · contribs) and Penelope1313 (talk · contribs) in the years since). I find no sources not written by the article subject xyrself, and the fact that I found someone disputing the truth of Unialphabet (AfD discussion) back in 2008, having tested out what Wikipedia said on the subject, leads to accuracy worries about the information here, as they were written by the same person, alongside Delfin Carbonell Basset (AfD discussion) who is claimed to be an immediate family member of this person on this person's autobiography elsewhere on the WWW.

Proposed deletion of the autobiography was challenged by the autobiographer in 2006.

Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't find anything about her in either Gnews or the NYT, although there are several hits on her name, not sure how many are this person Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That a page so lacking in any sources has survived for 16 years is a mark against Wikipedia. The only listed source is a book written by the subject. We need sources created by others saying something about those we have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One self-sourced autobiography....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable figure, plus COI concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also currently live in Sarasota so I checked our local library catalog as well as some other sources and found nothing that would signify this person as notable. Amscheip (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mounted Carabiniers (France). The arguments against keeping are stronger. The first "keep" argues that certain military units are inherently notable, which is contrary to applicable guidelines. The second "keep" argues that there are sources, but does not react to questions about the pertinence of these sources. Sandstein 07:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st Carabinier Regiment[edit]

1st Carabinier Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Advanced search for:  "1er régiment de carabiniers"
In books/documents  Google Books Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr

WP:GNG. I'm only able to find one secondary source that mentions the 1st Carabinier Regiment, which is just a Daily Mail article about a piece of scratched armor belonging to a soldier of this regiment. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It might help to search for the correct French spelling, which is régiment de carabiniers. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looked over in Gallica at BNF.fr for "1er régiment de carabiniers"; there are hits for several units, not sure how detailed each is. Napoleonic cavalry units are not my area of study. The unit exists, it would take a bit of digging to make an article. The Fr wiki article is about as poorly-sourced as this one is. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have always considered that battalion-sized units and above are notable. This is WP:COMMONSENSE and its principle is laid down at WP:MILUNIT. There are easily enough sources to prove that this regiment existed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus see the previous AfD discussion re sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh thanks. I was unaware of that WP:MILUNIT. Two questions-- first of all, how do I withdraw an AFD? Second, is there an available list of notability guidelines for specific subjects? BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • MILUNIT is a Wikiproject essay not a guideline. The actual guidelines are on Template:Notability guide. There is no basis for automatic notability for all such organizational units of any military. They are not exempt from our standard expections of significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mounted Carabiniers (France) along with 2nd Carabinier Regiment (France) per WP:NOPAGE, without prejudice; I don't see the need for separate articles without significant coverage establishing notability and the need for a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Reywas92 unless actual useful sources can be identified. The previous AfD 5+ years ago essentially turned around a "well surely there are sources if someone would just look for them" argument. Given that those sources have not materialized in 5+ years, we must assume they don't exist. Any arguments to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not convincing. As for WP:MILUNIT, it is an essay that explicitly states "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline" and "[The] presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'll gladly change my !vote if someone can actually identify the sources needed to establish WP:SIGCOV, but vague claims along the lines of "French Napoleonic regiments will undoubtedly have sources" (as in the last AfD) will not cut it. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not going to give a full review yet, but I'm starting to lean keep. There were only two regiments, and the premier régiment de carabiniers fought at Austerlitz, Friedland, Eckmühl, Wagram and Waterloo, which by itself should warrant at least some attention from military historians. I looked around a bit, and sources abound: 1814 [29], 1877 [30] (digitized), 1896 [pp.155-189], and going forward. I'm fairly sure that they also get coverage in English-language military history books, if one were to look. Pilaz (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are secondary sources, contemporary and modern. Emir Bukhari's Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers and Ronald Pawly's Napoleon’s Carabiniers are just two of the sources in English. Atchom (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Atchom: could you describe what those sources say about the 1st Carabinier Regiment in specific? Based on Amazon previews, both appear to very short books (<50 pages). A Google Books search of Napoleon's Carabiniers for the keyword "1st" produces only rather passing mentions such as "the 2nd Cavalry Corps was deployed in column of regiments, with 1st Carabiniers in front." and "The 1st Regt suffered severe casualties (12 officers and 104 troopers); the 2nd Regt...". Similarly, looking at the index of Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers in Amazon (assuming I'm interpreting the Index correctly), it seems that the 1st in specific is only indexed to images rather than text. I'm sure these would be wonderful sources for an article about the carabiniers in general, but this discussion is about whether the 1st regiment in specific should be a separate, dedicated, article. -Ljleppan (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Giampaoli[edit]

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

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

Footballer who fails WP:FOOTY, has never played in a WP:FPL, only in low-level non-pro leages. Discussion from WP:FOOTBALL Talk RedPatch (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Argentina. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 1 March 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 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL as per others and discussion Zanoni (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Czech Republic, Greece, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Guatemala. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. He's been pretty close throughout his career - I note that two of his teams were subsequently promoted to fully professional leagues. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G5 by Bbb23.(non-admin closure) AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Prajapati[edit]

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

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

Sunny Prajapati

This is an autobiography of a non-notable filmmaker. It has been reference-bombed with endnotes, but does not have any of the footnotes that are required for a biography of a living person. A previous version of this autobiography has been deleted as G11, spam. A draft version, Draft:Sunny Prajapati, has been submitted and declined four times, and this is essentially the same as the draft. An article should speak for itself, and this one does not establish a reason why the subject is biographically notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it to a redirect back to draft and tagged it for deletion as WP:IAR. As it is though, this article is a SPEEDY DELETE - nothing to support notability, no good sources and the draft declined multiple times. Ravensfire (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, clearly fails WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is not even requirement of discussion. Not realising WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. There isn't anything suitable to merge due to the sourcing issues, however if Ost or another editor would like to redirect, there's no issue there. Star Mississippi 03:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varanasi City Police Commissionerate[edit]

Varanasi City Police Commissionerate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I have done all the formalities now I think it is ready to a page[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:CORPDEPTH, not enough coverage in news, survey, discussions, analysis, or evaluation of the organization. The current page looks like a brochure. The only news source talks about implementation the commissionerate in Varanasi, which is the basis of the article title. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was trying to contribute to article but didn't get the reliable sources. Cinzia007 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Uttar Pradesh Police#Commissionerates until sources found to demonstrate WP:N. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. —Ost (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gowrishankar SRG[edit]

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

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

non-notable assistant director, no meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 17:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claim to notability, neither WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG is met, and there is a pretty strong feeling of UPE coming off this draft. This has been declined in AfC, as Draft:Gowrishankar srg and Draft:Gowrishankarsrg, and the draft creator has moved several drafts about this person to mainspace – this version was actually created by another user (who has no other edits) and then moved to mainspace by the same user who has been promoting Gowrishankar SRG on Wikipedia since September last year. --bonadea contributions talk 17:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also the deletion log of Gowrishankar srg, and note that the draft creator (Sspatilkea) is now moving the article around to different spellings (currently it's Gowrishikar SRG), in a dance that's pretty confusing for my poor brain. When this is deleted, it may be a good idea to salt all titles created by Sspatilkea. --bonadea contributions talk 18:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt: Editor behaviour means salting is reasonable assuming this WP:BIO failure is deleted. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR since he hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films. I also don't think he meets WP:GNG since the sources mention him but do not provide info of significant depth. I don't mind if a draft remains in Draft space (you never know) as long as, obviously, it's one draft and not multiple drafts about the same actor. Pichpich (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt all titles per above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Yan – Quick & Easy[edit]

Martin Yan – Quick & Easy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a television cooking show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. The notability test for television shows is not automatically passed just because the show existed, but requires WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the show in sources independent of itself to externally validate its significance -- but the only source here is the host's own primary source website about himself, which fails to adequately verify the existence of this show at all: it (promotionally) highlights a different show title, with absolutely no overlap of information with this article to verify whether that other show was this show by an alternate title or something completely different. And meanwhile, I can easily verify that the host published a cookbook with this title, but apart from brief namechecks in coverage of the cookbook that it was a tie-in to "his PBS series" (thus still not really answering the question of whether it was the same thing as Martin Yan's Chinatown or not), I can find no coverage whatsoever of the series as a series -- including a total inability to verify the claim that it was a Canadian production. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody's willing to tackle turning it into an article about the cookbook, but this isn't establishing the notability of a television series at all and I can't find anything else that does. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 05:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dillon (late 20th century screenwriter)[edit]

Robert Dillon (late 20th century screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find evidence of notability after a quick search. Cited references appear to be inaccessible/dead. Headphase (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing we have comes far short of GNG, so unless someone can present sourcing that actually meets GNG we need to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax that should never have moved into mainspace in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Northern Railroad[edit]

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

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

"Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" Moon Joon (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked and can not find any RS that this railroad has ever existed. The reference first used ("See American Shortline railway Guide (break) Greenburg Pub, May 1996 ISBN-10: 0890242909", later improved including an ISBN-13) was printed in 1996 and the company was formed in 1998 according to the article. It can tell background on mergers and spinning off shortlines, what locos shortlines liked, and some operations, but none can relate directly to this railroad.

The outside link "www(dot)inrail(dot)com/" is now a Russian WordPress site, who knows what it was back then? WordPress itself is a blog site and you would have to go at least one level lower to get any RS.

There is no reporting mark "INRR" as stated in the first line. Googling "Illinois Northern Railroad" gets hits for a switching line in SW Chicago associated with International Harvester. The only hit to this railroad is its article. Google images show no photos of any of its locos and railfans take pictures and talk about anything.

A "trains" person may know/care: Does the EJ&E line from Plainfield SSW match the description? Could this be mixed up with the Illinois Railway? Could this be a paper company or a plan that never happened? How could the B&OCT fit in?

At the time of the creator's (notified) last edit the article had no RS for any fact of this railroad. All edits after may be GF efforts to fix the article's form without checking its accuracy. Thank you. Moon Joon (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit added disclosure: I created Illinois Northern Railroad (1901-1975) Moon Joon (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Railway buff here, I'm not showing they exist on a map from the Illinois Dept of Transportation, circa 2018 [31]. A former railroad with the same name DID exist, but they went out of business. Google doesn't show much else... I'm thinking they might have been trying to restart the RR when the article was created? Who knows. I found a facebook group post about it, a new company leased part of the line (which was only two or three miles to begin with), so there might have been some attempt to note that as an article here.[ https://www.facebook.com/groups/ILLRRHISTORYBUFFS/permalink/3279368642289279/] Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Illinois Northern Railroad (1901-1975) was an entirely different line 30 miles to the east. Moon Joon (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• An alternative hypothesis is that the article creator got the dates wrong, but checking the book I'm not finding any evidence that it supports the existence of any such railway company at any date. Everything that I find elsewhere comes back to the nominator's Illinois Northern Railroad (1901-1975) instead. This is not verifiable from the sources cited and not verifiable from any source that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an apparent hoax. Absolutely nothing about this article is verifiable; "Lincolnville, Illinois" doesn't exist, and the supposed website was an unrelated company. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I've had a look through the history of the Inrail website on archive.org and it has always been a website design company specialising in railroad-related websites. Neither the earliest (August 2000) nor latest (March 2005) captures of the links page to sites they have designed mention anything in Illinois Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For what it's worth, I own the Edward A. Lewis book that's in the references, so I took a look in it and there's no mention of this supposed railroad. Railserve's very extensive reporting marks list [32] lists no entry under INRR, which the article claims is assigned to the subject of the article. This is a clear hoax. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet notability. Gusfriend (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails our hoax guidlines. There isn't a place called "Lincolnville" in Illinois, trust me, I have been in Illinois and no such place exists. Also the railroad, as far as I know, this is just a hoax to fool people.Felicia (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Football in India#Cup competitions. valid ATD. Solves to the lack of mention, and putting content where reader may be searching. Star Mississippi 03:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Bahadur Shastri Cup[edit]

Lal Bahadur Shastri Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has been tagged for months regarding notability by Shirt58, without seeing any additional information added to bolster notability. Current sourcing is simply either stats pages or a routine blurb about the 2006 match (one source doesn't even mention the tournament). Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Football in India#Cup competitions. No evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found no mention of Lal Bahadur Shastri Cup at Football in India#Cup competitions so I'm not sure how helpful a redirect would be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Err how about we simply add the mention... GiantSnowman 17:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Football in India#Cup competitions per WP:ATD-M. No indication of meeting GNG on its own but the lead can be merged as is by creating a section there. The results table may have to go. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Nguyen[edit]

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

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, Vietnam, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack the level of quality in-depth sourcing needed to show notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:GNG or WP:BIO is not realized. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom lacks third party sourcing WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Başköy[edit]

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

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

Another junior wrestler who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, Wrestling, and Turkey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A medal at a junior championship is generally not considered notable because it is not the highest level of competition. See the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmet Uyar. He also seems to lack the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete junior champion medals are not signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tipping away from the merges is the lack of consensus there as to how much should be merged, and if that would be undue in the article as well. Star Mississippi 03:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abingdon School controversies[edit]

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

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

The subject of controversies at Abingdon School does not appear to be notable. I did some Google searches and only found routine incidents. Devoting an article to these incidents gives them WP:UNDUE weight. The only similar article about a school I could find was Eton College controversies and Eton College is much better known and thus likely to be more controversial. I believe that these reasons justify deletion rather than redirection. The article was proposed for deletion on 16 February 2022 but this was reverted. TSventon (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Abingdon School, if any content is worth keeping. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Agree that the article gives WP:UNDUE weight. Should be merged to Abingdon School. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge taking care to avoid giving undue weight to negatives in the school's article. Cataloguing everything that's gone wrong over two decades without balancing it with anything that went well is a total abuse of good balance. There is no justification for a controversy article like this, unless a school's main article has become so huge that it needs to be separated into multiple mini-articles about each aspect of it. Eton might qualify, this school definitely does not. Elemimele (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, a few isolated incidents in the last few decades do not constitute worthwhile comment. Articles are supposed to encyclopedic and the danger of adding this information to Wikipedia is turning it into a tabloid. ApricotFoot (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this isn't notable enough on it's own to justify a separate article from the school. I don't think it's worth merging either. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and it's not like someone can't pretty easily just copy over what little information is worth saving if there is any to the main article. In the meantime, there's reason to keep the edit history since the article is only a week old and has only been edited by one person. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete This isn’t notable enough to justify its own article, and as others have said it’s WP:UNDUE. Any relevant information should be merged, and the rest deleted.GeekBurst (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poor article. Not worth keeping, doesn't add anything to Wikipedia. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has multiple issues and article content fails Wikipedia:SBST, WP:UNDUE and is questionable in other areas too. Pipesmoking Legend (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not a notable topic enough to have an article on its own and I don’t think merge would be a good idea. Alex-h (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "'Merge"' : I agree with GeekBurst, this article should be merged with the Abingdon School article as not only their isn't enough information to be (in my opinion) a " full " article, having this not be merged / deleted would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'ma editor2022 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For a number of reasons. The article has multiple issues and article content fails Wikipedia:SBST, WP:UNDUE and is questionable in other areas too. Additionally the article content has been entirely created by a single user with no further improvements being made and the majority of the consenus is delete. Pipesmoking Legend (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pipesmoking Legend, please can you strike your vote as you voted on 24 February. TSventon (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none is likely to develop in a strong enough manner to tip the mixed, policy-based !votes Star Mississippi 03:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wired Productions[edit]

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

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

Provided references do not prove notability. Fails WP:CORP Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to be a publisher of multiple notable games, with relative longevity for a tech company. What's specifically wrong with what's there? Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As the nom noted, CORP is not met, and by extension, WP:GNG... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It's one of those weird cases where the company has made some notable products (games) but WP:NOTINHERITED. If their work was significant they should be winning awards as a company or such. I am not seeing this in the article. Business as usual, I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Award and nomination were added to article. Kindly check out it. Fabiobengario (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A BEFORE provide enough RS from reliable independent sources in game industry. After a Google search I investigate the references of article. Based on provided WP:SIGV, It meets WP:GNG, at least to my eye. Alimovvarsu (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An award-winning company (award and nomination were added to article), publisher of multiple notable video game and receiving significant coverage in independent game websites. passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Fabiobengario (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Fabiobengario (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• Note: The *company* did not win any awards. The award was to Emily Mitchell who created the game - also not a BAFTA but a MVC/Develop award. Similarly, the BAFTA nomination was for the game not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company is mentioned in some of the RS, though the RS isn't great quality; most of the good RS mentions the products. The company however is prolific, its games are certainly mentioned, and the company has won some high profile awards, so passes GNG and WP:CORP Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article content does not determine notability. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally, the nominator left a low effort vaguewave nomination without articulating why the extent of the sources available on the internet, not merely the ones cited to the article, does not establish the topic as meeting the guidelines highlighted by WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on above keep voters's arguments and availability of enough coverage. Zeddedm (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I removed it from the Video game WikiProject's request list a while back for not being notable. It clearly still isn't, the sources range from trivial coverage to press releases and lacks significant secondary sourcing that passes WP:NCORP. I'd like to see the article creator provide WP:THREE best sources that prove it is notable and maybe I would change my mind, but so far none of the keep !votes have demonstrated as such, besides WP:ITSNOTABLE. Simply winning awards is again not enough to indicate standalone notability, and allowing companies to make articles solely based on their press releases risks turning Wikipedia into a method of advertising that goes against WP:NOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftifying or weak delete: I agreed with Piotrus that it is a company that have released several notable products, but sources about the company itself are really lacking. I have tried to create an article for this company in the past after seeing a request for this at WP:VG/REQ but ultimately I don't think there are enough sources out there to justify a proper article right now. This two sources are quite good, but they are essentially interviews with the founder and there are a lot of PR talk. Notability is not inherited. The editors who cited WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST really need to provide an example of what's out there that can actually be used to demonstrate notability instead of just citing the policy/guideline. Ultimately, I think the company can become notable one day (as long as some gaming RS are willing to write about them), so draftifying the article is a good option. OceanHok (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no reasonable reason for moving it to draft! The article is notable or not, if so keep and if not delete. Additional to sources cited in the article, by a Google searching I found [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. All of provided sources indicates notability of company clearly. Alsothe company has won a notable award. Notability has been established. Misasory (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But none of these sources are about the company itself. These sources show that one of their games are notable, but did not show that the company itself is notable. OceanHok (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article on publisher of notable games. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am of like mind with Keep arguments. Publisher of various notable video games, It could be considered as a notable tech company. In my opinion citations are good enough for demonstrating notability of company for current content in article. Elbatli (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is essentially a listing taken the information from the company website. There is no historical analysis, merely a copy of what is available on the web and of little encyclopeadic value. The games themselves, there is no mainstream AAA titles I can see. Looking at the references they are a clear violation of NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. It is the usual routine coverage. The coverage above is more to do with censorship that the game itself, showing the level of interest in the company. Not a single reference in the first block provide in-depth coverage of the company. It is all routine muck. scope_creep^Talk 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, your comment is extermly unqualified about this company.ZanciD (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But he is not wrong. Majority of the sources listed in the article are about the products they have released, and not about the company. We need sources that discuss the company in a significant manner (e.g. its history), not sources that talk about the games they have released. OceanHok (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the sources provided by "Ahmed" are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG to you.Fabiobengario (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I really couldn't understand the reason of delete voters! The page has significant coverage in reliable sources based on the page's references and mentioned sources in this discuss. The company with several notable products that was featured in reliable sources. It clearly meets WP:NCORP, as sources are proving that. ZanciD (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too promotional as it stand currently. Perhaps it can be modified to a more neutral point of view. Nweil (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you didn't read the article! Because there is not any promotional word or advertising! As I said there is not even one promotional word, even one word. Fabiobengario (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reading all the references so far, I believe it passes WP:NCORP and justify subject's notability. Notability also is asserted by award and nomination that are definitely independent refernces.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because the company is publisher of some of notable recent-released video games, so finding sources focusing on company (no its games) is difficult. Anyway I investigated that and found [38], [39], [40], [41], [42],[43], [44]. Sources are focusing on the company directly. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Ahmed ^(talk) 14:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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