< October 22	October 24 >

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maharajapuram Nagammal Rajaiah Desiya Girls Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Not mentioned in books or google scholar. No mentions in JStor nor NYTimes. References are questionable. I don't think this passes notability. Wozal (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Wozal (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding any SIGCOV. If good sources are found in Tamil, I'm happy to change my vote. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be of local interest (WP:LOCAL) to me. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utah State University Honors Program[edit]

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

While Utah State University is notable, there is nothing to distinguish that their honors page should have its own wikipedia page as its only citations are citations from their own website. Wozal (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Utah. Wozal (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources featuring independent coverage of this program, and any mentions in books are in passing. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 00:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NORG. A redirect to the university is a possible ATD, but pointless, as the article on the university will show up before this title would. 174.212.208.18 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient independent sources to show that it's notable enough for a separate article. Suonii180 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that there is a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources has not been successfully refuted, and as such the delete side prevails. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilario Bisi-Pedro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, there does seem to be a short passage in The Royal Court Theatre Inside Out but that is insufficient by itself to support notability. Seems to have played only minor roles in notable productions thus failing NACTOR. W 42 13:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Nigeria, and England. W 42 13:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on, there are sources to help back things up. Since this proposed deletion, I have tried to find more things to help save the page such as the actor was part of African Pan Players, who were invited to Senegal in 1966. There, with the Negro Theatre Workshop, they presented a show about slavery and the evolution of African art.^[1]

Then again, there are actor pages that have been on here for donkeys (Frederick Hall, Roy Spencer, Tom Kelly, Laurence Harrington, John Hallet, Eileen Helsby, Timothy Walker, Leonard Trolley to name but a few) and have gotten by with naff all for sources.Silurian25 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a single mention of Bisi-Pedro in a list of names which does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. The subject still needs to pass WP:GNG, but you are welcome to nominate other articles for deletion if you think they also do not comply with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. W 42 21:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also has appeared in movies in some capacity like The Dogs of War (getting machine gunned by Christopher Walken) and The Lady (playing anti-apartheid campaigner Archibishop Desmond Tutu). Surely the dedication to him at the end of his Some Girls would add some sort of acknowledgement as well?2A00:23C6:D88E:8901:8D26:EB90:E621:5335 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ : it’s great he has a lot of experience play roles on notable movies but I’m in stil in doubt if that stands a chance for subject to have a Wikipedia page since he fails the WP:GNG.--Gabriel^t@lk 03:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also why you don't submit article for review? Theirs something fishy with the way you create articles. 13 years account creation with just 134 edit count.--Gabriel^t@lk 03:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chambers, Colin (2020). Black and Asian Theatre in Britain. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134216895.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I was on patrol and i still met this page AFD once again. The subject fails WP:GNG. He has a IMDb profile that’s good for him. A Wikipedia page for him it’s not a must since he fails WP:GNG. Appearing on notable movies doesn’t still makes him suitable. @Silurian25:, just like what Winner 42 said. If you think they’re other articles like this, you can nominate them or you list them on my talk page for a check.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I think this is clearly a well sourced article about an actor. It has (currently) seven citations, two of which are from textbooks. There are stubs which have many fewer citations than this, and indeed much less content, and are retained as encyclopedic. To delete this perfectly serviceable article would be ridiculous, and would not serve the overall goal of the encyclopedia. Patr2016 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But all except possibly one of those seven citations do not meet the requirement of being significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. They are either unreliable web sites or only give Bisi-Pedro a name-check without providing any information. The possible exception is ISBN 9781840027631, which I can only see a snippet of on Google Books, but that snippet, and the extra content that I can see in a Google Books search, looks like an interview or quotation from him rather than anything that writes about him. I can find no other sources to expand on these. I have looked for both "Ilario Bisi-Pedro" and "Ilario Pedro". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nesstar[edit]

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

No in-depth secondary coverage. Cited sources are all non-independent, except a blog source with only a passing mention. Google News turns up a handful of passing mentions. The article is overly promotional, with "early player in the development of internet-supported research data management" being unsourced and a claim about Statistics Canada being "built on Nesstar tools" being unsupported by the cited source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Norway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefangledfeathers, thanks for reviewing the article.

I just want to add a bit of context to this. Nesstar is/was (as the article states) an open-source tool that supported the growth of research data management in the social sciences, in particular social research. The platform is no longer supported or developed (it's end-of-life) and, as far as I can tell, Nesstar (the organization) has also been dissolved. So this is not intended to be a promotional piece, but rather to describe a (historic?) piece of software. I'm in no way related to this project (just a social science data librarian).

I recognize the lack of sources you mentioned, and perhaps I "un-drafted" the article too soon. Aliciabedul (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aliciabedul, I've been careless a few times in the past few days about using "promo" as an assessment of the content when it could very reasonably be taken as a comment on the contributor's intentions. I definitely didn't mean to communicate the latter, and I'm sorry for not being clear about that. ~~If you're amenable to draftification, and no one votes for deletion in the meantime, I'd be happy to withdraw and close this nomination and draftify the article.~~ Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC) striking now that another editor has !voted to delete 01:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I've saved a copy of the content and if I find I can have it meet the standard, I might re-create it later on.

No offense taken, I see how the language you cited could come across as not objective. Aliciabedul (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic does not meet the general notability guideline, though my submission is made without prejudice for a recreation of this article in future. Deletion does not prevent the author from saving the text and recreating if deleted. However it will act as insurance - if the article is quickly recreated despite a consensus to delete, and is materially the same as before, it means it can be speedily deleted. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a company, it's likely not notable. However, the product has received some academic attention in library science: [1], [2], and a well-cited article called "NESSTAR: A Semantic Web application for statistical data and metadata" that I can't readily find a PDF of. FalconK (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some coverage over security vulnerabilities, Statistics Canada has stopped using it. Not really enough to build an article here about the product. Oaktree b (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I no longer have concerns about the article, nor does anyone else. (non-admin closure) —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 11:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Presidents Corners[edit]

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

This article is a non-notable near recreation of Four Presidents Corners, Indiana, which was deleted after this AfD. This incarnation is about the point itself, whereas the previous article was about a purported village about the point. There aren't any secondary sources that give significant coverage I could find, and--on WP:TWL--there were just a few mentions of the Four Pres. Corners Historical Society. I also analyzed some of the sources at Talk:Four Presidents Corners. It's just not important enough to have received anything resempling in-depth coverage (and is far from meeting the applicable SNG WP:GEOFEAT). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 18:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 18:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify - My searches during the previous AfD didn't find any significant coverage of the monument, and the sources in the re-created article aren't impressive, but I'm willing to give the author a chance to improve it if they can find better sourcing. –dlthewave ☎ 05:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The expansion and additional sources are enough to justify an article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References do not need to be impressive, but satisfactory for an article about the 'mixed' GEO:FEAT: quadripoint monument at the intersection to record its history. What's impressive is that while there are numerous tripoints and quadipoints in the USA, few are named and/or memorialized, which distingusihes it, as in seen in the very small Category:Quadripoints and higher of which 4PrezCorners is part. Djflem (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst trying to fix the link to the 2015 article, I did find [3], [4], and [5], all newspaper articles from the dedication of the monument. There's also this link to the 2015 Fort Wayne article that was not included in the article prior to today: Presidential timber. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New refs inserted and article slightly expanded. Djflem (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The midwest United States needs monuments too. I love that this exists and is celebrated. Seriously though, seems to be enough sourcing to get by GNG in my view.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:45, 25 October 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 MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. After the relist and source analysis the consensus is much clearer. Redirects have the numeric advantage and the policy-based advantage. Two of the keeps are policy-free. The delete helps push this towards redirect, an ATD, because it shows that editors do not think this article should exist in its current form on Wikipedia. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWEC-FM[edit]

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

This page was repeatedly redirected and restored but it fails GNG. Refs provided are a trivial mention (ref 1, 3), or a routine announcement. My WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions or the routine Yearbook but nothing that is SIGCOV, 1, 2, 3. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG. To clarify: I support a redirect below per WP:ATD possibly with salting, though the latter might not gain consensus. VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging users who redirected and restored, User:Boombastic061, User:49.146.27.149, User:Superastig, User:Onel5969, User:Rosguill, and User:WayKurat.

VickKiang (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore redirect, then salt to prevent recreation. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt to MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. Plus, salt the page to prevent recreation UNLESS passes WP:GNG/WP:BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others and my prior conclusions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that, while the threading of the AfD may suggest otherwise, the sources mentioned below by Astig were already in the article at the time of the AfD opening. I think the Manila Standard coverage is borderline as far as whether it counts as routine or significant (no byline, some puffery, but also a fair amount of neutral details), and does not establish GNG on its own. The other sources are either more trivial or not secondary, leaaving us short of GNG as a whole. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 (added upon recreation) and 3 in the article is non-trivial coverage about the station. Sources 1 and the additional sources indicated by the nominator states that the station is licensed. That said, article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improved by Astig. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like said above by Rosguill I don't believe this was improved by Superastig, their analysis is sound IMO but the refs were already present during my AfD nom, could you elaborate if it's possible? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others Goodvibes500 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the close challenge on my talk page, I have relisted the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if editors !voting keep could substantiate why/how the article meets GNG: other than a mere mention in a comprehensive industry yearbook, the two articles cited in the piece are from Manila Standard ([6]) and LionhearTV ([7]). I've already analyzed the MS piece above. LionhearTV, meanwhile, self-identifies as a group blog [8] that offers "direct premium advertising" and "online media partnerships" [9]. I don't think an article from this source with a collective byline can be considered reliable, and it may well be a lightly-edited press release from the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is my source assessment table. For the keep votes, if it's possible could you explain how LionHeartTv net is RS? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2011PY_Communications.pdf		Trivial mention.	✘ No
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=E5MVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0woEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2101%2C2122589	Credible newspaper	~ While the coverage is announcement-like and leans on the shorter side, it is plausibly SIGCOV.	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20201008045714/https://www.msn.com/en-ph/entertainment/other/tahanan-po-ang-mor-for-12-years-sorry-dj-chacha-bids-tearful-goodbye-as-mor-my-only-radio-faces-closure/ar-BB16PyM4	The website is likely unreliable, see about us pages at 1, 2, and has no editorial policies	~ No byline and an announcement that resembles an edited press release, despite decently long with some commentary.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Redirect Compelling case above from VickKiang. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Not particularly notable; no indication of how it passes WP:GNG or what sources are good enough to qualify to be SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🎃) 21:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. Source analysis is convincing. 4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough, and not worthy of it's own article. Read WP:GNG. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: Per WP:ATD would you concur with a redirect? VickKiang (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no. This is not notable. Even I, an ABS CBN fan haven't heard of it. Not notable, only 1 passing mention, no independent sources, nothing. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect voters and me (the deletion nominator) agree that it is not notable. However, I'm asking the reason that you oppose a redirect, which is an alternative to deletion. Do you believe that the page would be converted to an article again? I've also left a message at your talk page. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were would you want to redirect it then, Brother? I've already serched multiple articles compatible for this to be redirected, but I found nothing relevant to this subject. I've already researched before making my vote. And I'm sorry brother, my vote is final. nothing in WP:ATD's alternatives can be done here. Either way, I'm pretty sure that you don't need to worry. Because my single vote of delete is rather unsignificant. Thanks! Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from commenting further, but just a note that DWEC-FM is mentioned at MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay White (mixed martial artist)[edit]

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

Putting aside the fact this article needs serious cleanup if it were to stay, the subject fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Subject has a losing record, and never peaked above the top 100 in his division, according to FightMatrix. As for GNG, I couldn't find anything that demonstrates significant coverage. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and Nevada. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All loses in major promotions, no where close to a top talent, no articles on him anywhere. HeinzMaster (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never close to being notable as an MMA fighter. He doesn't seem to ever have competed at the highest level of BJJ (an international black belt competition). The article's claim of him winning medals in successive years competing at the "Pan-American Games in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" is clearly wrong because BJJ isn't even an event at the Pan American Games, the martial arts events at the Pan Am games aren't divided by belt levels, and the games are only held every 4 years. There's no evidence of success at the highest levels of grappling or bodybuilding. I also didn't see significant independent coverage that would show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:10, 29 October 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!} 22:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Billstein[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. His highest ranking by FightMatrix was 47th in the middleweight division, which is short of the requirement to be ranked inside the top 10. Couldn't find any significant coverage to satisfy GNG, mostly routine coverage for mixed martial artists. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Germany. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. The only coverage is typical of any pro fighter--results, fight announcements, and database listings. I didn't see anything that shows he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:48, 29 October 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 61 Virginis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

61 Virginis d[edit]

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

A suspected exoplanet, which seems notable -- but in 2021 it was analyzed in greater depth and confirmed to have been a false positive. So this is not an article about a suspected exoplanet, but rather an article about a measurement artifact between the years of 2009 and 2021 that made it look like there might have been a planet. My recommendation -- since there is some amount of well-written content here -- is to merge it into a section at 61 Virginis and redirect the article. jp×g 20:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. jp×g 20:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JPxG. I would also consider removing it from the planetary system table on the 61 Virginis article. Does it need to be removed from the List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity and List of exoplanets discovered between 2000–2009 articles? Praemonitus (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done about the first of those lists, it's extremely outdated. SevenSpheres (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with the reasoning above @JPxG -- Lenny Marks (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with the reasoning above @JPxG — Aldaron • T/C 17:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - this should have been a merge proposal rather than an AfD. I'm not sure the planet should be regarded as 100% disproven based on just the Rosenthal paper though, and the databases still list it as "confirmed". SevenSpheres (talk) 01:53, 28 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early Warning Labs[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

The article was first created as a draft by a company employee who disregarded repeated requests to allow it to go through AfC, and moved it to mainspace. I do not see that WP:CORPDEPTH is met – sources are mainly focused on their product, an app connected to the ShakeAlert system, and there is no coverage of the company by independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:ATD "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it" - It is discouraged but not forbidden for a COI article to be published direct to the main space. All required disclosures were made including on the article and user talk page. After contributing to many other articles and seeing the extreme lack of citations and notability, it is quite shocking that this article is being delayed given its neutrality, notability and citations. I have tirelessly asked for guidance via the channels available here and the article reflected that via revisions. Upon receiving auto-confirmed status, I determined it acceptable (and respectful of volunteer reviewers time) to publish the article. @Bonadea has not provided concrete evidence why an auto-confirmed user cannot publish a COI article if all the required disclosures are performed and article meets minimum notability guidelines as determined by the author. The appropriate procedure in the spirit of Wikipedia is WP:ATD-T @Bonadea should have respected my decision and instead contributed to the article or added template’s to the page suggesting additional citations, revisions, expansions, etc to allow the community to improve the article. These tags have already been added - This AFD should be reversed according to WP:ATD-T EricFishers11 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "respect my decision" means here. I did respect your decision to move the article to mainspace. When an article is created in mainspace or moved there from draftspace, it is eligible for deletion if the community should consider it non-notable. (That applies to articles accepted by AfC reviewers as well, by the way.) This AfD discussion was opened because in my view the sources do not show how the company is notable; if by "my decision" you mean your own assessment about its notability, it makes little sense to say that anyone else should "respect [your] decision". Nobody gets to "decide" unilaterally that a topic is notable, and since a) notability criteria are not always straightforward to a very new editor and b) you were paid to create this, it would be a more constructive attitude for you to welcome an outside, impartial evaluation of your company's notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers EricFishers11 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. The policy is very clear: COI editors should only create articles through AFC. Attempting an end run around the proper process by arguing semantics is not acceptable behavior. Bonadea's actions are completely in the right. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If your assertion is true, then WP:ATD should have been observed instead an immediate AfD EricFishers11 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT. The sources are all WP:PRIMARY materials or interviews which lack independence from the subject. Further, none of the sources have in-depth coverage of the company itself, but are primarily about a product of the company, the Shakealert app. Per WP:ORGSIG, notability is not inherited. Sources must have independent significant coverage of the company itself and not merely a product of the company. See detailed source analysis below. Additionally, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no independent secondary sources. Not seeing a viable article based on what has currently been published. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would not recommend moving this back to draft based on lack of supporting evidence in secondary sources, and suggest outright deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The primary source tag has already been added to the article to address WP:BEFORE

See: C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

:1.) If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.

2.) If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article EricFishers11 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EricFishers11, you have misunderstood WP:ATD which is a guide of actions one should consider as an alternative to deletion under certain circumstances; none of which apply in this case. WP:ATD-T is applied only to "fixable problems", and as I stated in my above argument, these are not fixable problems. Likewise, WP:ATD-I does not apply here either because a topic without qualifying sources has no way to successfully incubate. Placing tags to alert editors to the problem of primary sources and non-independent sources is not going to solve the fundamental underlying problem which is that independent secondary sources just simply do not exist. Likewise, a topic without secondary independent coverage is not able to incubate in draft space. Deletion is really the only policy based choice in this case.4meter4 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the support resources, including the IRC chat this article had between 3-5 good secondary articles and could be improved. This is not a flagrant disregard of the guidelines and rules. I still maintain this should be published. EricFishers11 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please see the source analysis below which highlights issues with every single source per our policies at WP:ORG. None of the secondary sources are interview free; which we require per our written policy at WP:MULTSOURCES (see SECONDARY section) where "interviews by executives" are explicitly labeled as PRIMARY sources even if they are in a publication like the Los Angeles Times or a a respected podcast. The problem with the secondary sources here is they all contain interviews with EWL's founder Josh Bashioum, which immediately disqualifies them as sources for proving notability per our written policy. With zero secondary sources independent from the subject, there are no good sources.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless it still qualifies under "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization" as the coverage documents the progress of the implementation of ShakeAlert and the companies role from 2014 to present. EricFishers11 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here I also have to disagree. None of the sources are about Early Warning Labs; and only provide indirect coverage of the company. The ongoing media coverage is not about Early Warning Labs at all but about the ShakeAlert warning system of which EWL is only one small component, with some attention given to the ShakeAlert app created by EWL (but not only their app; as other apps have been made by other companies). We have no sources with in-depth coverage of the company itself. In fact EWL is only mentioned in passing in most of the sources; even in the sources about their app. As I stated above, articles about the product made by a company do not confer notability onto the company itself. We need coverage directly and in detail about EWL, not the ShakeAlert App the company created per WP:ORGSIG. The notability of a product doesn't extend to the company that makes it per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability fallacies#Notability is inherited.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's non sequitur, EWL is regularly mentioned in nearly every article as the facilitator of the technology. Also, a "quote" is not considered an interview. Out of curiosity, what content would you remove to create a "stub" for publishing? EricFishers11 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted texts are taken from interviews. You are not going to find any support here for that kind of argument. I am an AFD patroller who has worked regularly at AFD for years. This is the way WP:CORPDEPTH is routinely applied at AFD. What we really need here are sources about Early Warning Labs as a company which provide significant coverage. Sources with an independent analysis of the company or a critique of the company or even a history of the company (without quoted text from an executive) would be particularly useful in demonstrating notability. On a side note, the sources here would potentially work better towards creating an article on the app itself (as these sources are directly about the app); although some of the independence issues are still a problem.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not a bad idea to create an article for the app. Could this be resolved publishing EWL as a Stub and point to the app page? EricFishers11 (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. There's not enough evidence of independent secondary sources to even allow for a stub. We have have very strict policies regarding our inclusion criteria for organizations. However, you could create an article on the app in draft space and potentially have it approved through WP:AFC. Once approved it would be moved to mainspace. Once that happens you could create a WP:REDIRECT at Early Warning Labs to the article on the app. That probably would be your best way forward based on the current sources available. It's possible an article on the app would pass WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Products have less hoops to jump though than companies when it comes to notability. 4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
"Earthquake Detected! Here's How You Can Prepare". U.S. Geological Survey.	N	N	Y	N	N	Published by the U.S. Geological Survey which manages the shake alert app. Lacks independence. Also a WP:PRIMARY source as a government publication. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"ShakeAlert License to Operate Partners". www.shakealert.org.	N	N	?	N	N	Cited to the Shakealert app website. Company only mentioned in passing. WP:PRIMARY source which lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT
PBS NewsHour - How this earthquake alert app could give the West Coast vital warning	N	N	Y	Y	N	The shake alert app and related warning system is the main subject of this 9 minute news piece. Early Warning Labs is never mentioned by name in the spoken coverage, and a less than 15 second clip with an employee of the lab being interviewed is the total amount of coverage. While the warning system itself is clearly notable (involving multiple government agencies, universities, and private companies) Early Warning Labs has very trivial coverage in this news story which has nothing to say about the company itself. Also, as an interview lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT
"Earthquake early-warning app could be coming soon". www.cbsnews.com.	N	N	Y	Y	N	As an interview lacks independence. Article is not about the company but their product. Not an in-depth source about the company itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"From elevators to trains, earthquake early warning system grows as Trump threatens to kill it". Los Angeles Times. 2017-06-02.	N	N	Y	Y	N	Article is about the Early Earthquake Warning system. No coverage of the company itself. Contains a very brief quote/ interview with an employee. Lacks independence and no in-depth coverage of the company. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"Revised technical implementation plan for the ShakeAlert system—An earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States". U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018–1155. 2018. doi:10.3133/ofr20181155.	N	N	Y	N	N	Briefly mentions the company as being involved in beta testing the app. Not in-depth coverage. As the USGS is contracting with the company, lacks independence from the subject. Also a WP:PRIMARY source as a government publication. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Walker, Alissa (2018-01-16). "Angelenos might have an earthquake early warning app by the end of 2018". Curbed LA. Retrieved 2022-10-19.	N	N	Y	Y	N	Interview with company employee about beta testing of the app. Again, not about the company but their product. Lacks independence as an interview. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"Early-Warning Earthquake App". TWiT.tv.	N	N	?	?	N	A This Week in Tech podcast. Interview with the founder of the company about the app. As an interview lacks independence. Again not about the company but their product. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"California's new early warning earthquake app features a shaking countdown". Los Angeles Times. 2020-02-12. Retrieved 2022-10-19.	N	N	Y	Y	N	Article about the company's app. Again about the product and not the company itself. As an interview lacks independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"Earthquake Early Warning App Provides a Countdown to the Shaking". GovTech. 2020-02-15. Retrieved 2022-10-19.	N	N	Y	N	N	Article about the company's app and the related warning system. Again about the product and not the company itself. As an interview lacks independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"How do I sign up for the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System?". www.usgs.gov. Retrieved 2022-10-18.	N	N	Y	N	N	WP:PRIMARY source published by the USGS who contracts with the company. About the product not the company. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"File:CRADA Lay Summary Early Warning Labs & USGS.jpg - Wikipedia". commons.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2022-10-23.	Y	N	Y	N	N	WP:PRIMARY source published by the USGS who contracts with the company. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Buhr, Sarah (2014-11-09). "Early Warning Labs Partners With USGS To Create An Earthquake Warning App". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2022-10-18.	Y	N	Y	N	N	Article about the company's app and the related warning system. As an interview lacks independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System and the Federal Role". US Congress.	N	N	Y	N	N	WP:PRIMARY source as a government publication. As Early Warning Labs is contracted to the government, lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Discovery Channel documentary	N	N	Y	Y	N	Documentary about a the hardware system of the company; but not the company itself, within the context of the ShakeAlert system. No coverage of the company itself, but there is coverage of their hardware. Contains a very brief quote/ interview with an employee. Lacks independence and no in-depth coverage of the company. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
New Yorker article	N	N	Y	Y	N	Article is about the Early Earthquake Warning system. Contains a very brief description of the company. Lacks in-depth coverage of the company. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"Earthquake Early Warning ShakeAlert 2.0: Public Rollout". pubs.geoscienceworld.org. Retrieved 2022-10-25.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is about the ShakeAlert system. EWL's role in the rollout is briefly mentioned. Lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Riopelle, Deborah (2020). Likelihood of organizations in the Los Angeles area implementing an earthquake early warning system (Thesis). UCLA.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	EWL is only mentioned in passing. Lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"Transit Briefs: LACMTA; NYMTA; SFRTA; STM; Metra". Railway Age. 2021-10-21. Retrieved 2022-10-25.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Early Warning Labs is mentioned in passing in one sentence. Lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Porter, K.A. (2020). "Best Practices for Earthquake Early Warning: A Compendium" (PDF). SPA Risk.`((cite journal))`: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)	?	N	Y	?	N	Funded by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services which also partially funds ShakeAlert of which EWL is a contracted company. Therefore lacks independence from the subject. As a government funded report, this could possibly be considered a primary source. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Earthquake Detection System May Give 100-Second Warning When 'Big One' Hits March 29, 2013 KCET Video via YouTube	?	N	Y	?	N	Television News report about a test run of ShakeAlert. Content is an interview with an executive from USGS which is a close contractual relationship with Early Warning Labs. Lack independence from the subject. As an interview could be considered a primary source even if it is on the news as there is no independent fact checking or editorial oversight in the context of a live interview. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Amore, Samson (2018-11-01). "Seismic Data's Biz Potential". Los Angeles Business Journal. Retrieved 2022-10-28.	N	N	Y	Y	N	Interview with company's director. Again more about the company's product and not the company itself. Lacks independence as an interview. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Zaho, Helen (2017-06-08). "Quake Alert System Takes Crack at Condo Tower". Retrieved 2022-10-28.	N	N	Y	Y	N	Interview with company's director. Focus is on the Condo Tower project of the company and not the company itself. Lacks independence as an interview. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Delete I agree with the above that the articles listed on the site, with the exception of the CBS one, are 1) about the program and the software, not the company OR 2) namecheck the company. Although there are not enough sources for them to have a page themselves, one or more of the sources here could be used to add them to Earthquake_warning_system#MyShake, although since they didn't do it alone it would be only fair to include others. In some cases a single source listed here could cover more than one. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona I don't think that is the best article to contain that information which is about earthquake warning systems generally; not the specific one used by this app. We have an article on the specific earthquake warning system that the app uses where it is already mentioned at ShakeAlert#Alert distribution#Cell phone alert.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 MyShake is talked about in both, so in effect the information is already in both but it isn't the main topic in either. I think any important information will need to be added to both as long as the software is described in both. It's not ideal, and presumably one article could simply point to the other, but that will take more thought. I'd say: if the editor wishes to add information from this article it should be added to both, for now. Lamona (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MyShake is a completely different app with zero connection to EWL which was developed by the University of California, Berkley. It is integrated into multiple earthquake systems globally (it can be used in Japan for example). This is not true of EWL's app which is only part of the ShakeAlert system and can only be used on the West Coast of the United States. There is no reason to cover EWL's app in a section on MyShake as they are two different things.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @4meter4 - MyShake qualifies under both ShakeAlert#Alert distribution#Cell phone alert and Earthquake warning system#Deployment#Global systems there may be a fit somewhere else in Earthquake warning system but I dont see a good fit as written. EricFishers11 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen this company mentioned online frequently and just looked them up on Wikipedia. I saw it was up for deletion. My 2 cents: It may be light on secondary sources but the company and their app has had significant coverage looking online. Just looking at their YouTube page it has lots of coverage including a documentary on them from the Discovery Channel which has to count for something and I found this about them in the New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/theres-an-earthquake-coming 73.158.238.77 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)— 73.158.238.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whether a source is online or not has no connection to whether it is primary or secondary. The New Yorker article you link to is not about the company, it's an article about a related topic which contains a trivial mention of the company name. --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Discovery Channel coverage (viewable here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuWPI-A9COQ) is about the ShakeAlert system as a whole, and the coverage of Early Warning Labs in the documentary is not about the company itself but their app through an interview with EWL's director. It's not independent as an interview. And it's not significant coverage of the company itself. I have added both of these sources to the source analysis table. 4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 You are incorrect - there is absolutely NO mention of the app QuakeAlert - which is actually just one of the offerings of the company. This documentary is showing their hardware system automate a fire station, nowhere does it mention "QuakeAlert" the app. Perhaps you are confused what the company actually does. EricFishers11 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, a demonstration of another product of the company in the context of an interview is still not independent; nor is it about the company but another product of the company. So the problem is still the same.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added Early Warning Labs#Pop Culture Ironically our project with Wikipedia is there — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricFishers11 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may have misread the source. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/16/17698514/wikipedia-streetwear-collab says that a "streetware brand and crystal shop" called Advisory Board Crystals collaborated with Wikipedia in 2018 (which does not make them notable!), and that they had previously released some clothing together with Early Warning Labs. No connection between WP and EWL, no info about when the EWL hoodie was produced, and the “Knowledge is power and awareness is survival" slogan was on the WP themed clothing, not the EWL hoodie. --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some new sources were added - 5,6,8,9 EricFishers11 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added them to the source analysis above. None of these work towards establishing notability of EWL.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lets move this back to drafts then. Ill focus on Draft:QuakeAlertUSA as suggested here. @4meter4 Which of the articles listed above would support that? EricFishers11 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately neither of us has the authority to unilaterally make that decision now that so many other editors have participated here. The AFD will need to be evaluated and closed by a non-participating neutral administrator. It’s up to that admin whether this can be moved back to draft and retooled towards the app. If and when that happens, I can examine the sources again and make suggestions. I am not entirely confident that it would pass GNG even when retooled because of the interview component of many of the sources. It’s going to be a borderline call, and I can’t say for sure how other editors will respond for sure. I really do think you should go through the WP:AFC approval process because that is going to ultimately help you to develop a passable article.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it has been pretty conclusively established in this mess of a discussion that this company does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. EricFishers11 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Admin The article has begun to receive extensive community edits with new sources and citations hopefully WP:HEY can come into play here - Irregardless of the outcome (Delete or Keep) of this AfD I feel its would benefit the article to move back to "Draft" status to allow the community to continue to improve it. It can then be submitted via AfC once ready. EricFishers11 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a bit premature to make this comment. Some substantial copy editing has occurred by one editor, but only one additional source has been added, which like the other references, does not provide in-depth coverage of Early Warning Labs as a company and consists of an interview with an employee of USGS about a test run of ShakeAlert. USGS has a close partnership with EWL; and therefore this source lacks independence from the company. I have added the source to the table. 4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been revised quite a bit more. EricFishers11 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. More sources with the same overall problems; this is WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing here which has in-depth coverage of the company as an institution. Everything relates to products of the company or projects related to ShakeAlert with which they are involved. Further, many of these sources are more interviews with EWL's founder which lack independence. I'm still not seeing anything that would pass WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly of interest to the community:

Pageviews 10/7 - 10/27

EWL: 694

ShakeAlert: 950 EricFishers11 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that nearly all of those page views would be from just you, me, and 7&6=thirteen and those looking at the article for this AFD. (I myself have probably opened this article over a hundred times in that window of time) Regardless, page view statistics are not a valid argument per WP:POPULARPAGE.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, source assessment above shows that WP:NCORP is not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG are met. I don't think that draftifying would be particularly helpful as simply re-writing isn't the only issue and the subject doesn't seem to have the coverage needed to pass AFC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, and afterwards, due to the tone of the article's creator, I would advise to salt it so as to not waste other editor's time again.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with onel5969 regarding salting the article. GPL93 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are now 36 sources - many of which are independent news organizations. It's not the article it was when nominated for deletion. Sadly, this is a better article than many on Wikipedia. It is informative and useful to readers. It is not written like an advertisement or promotional. It really seems as if the COI is more important than article quality. It easily meets WP:GNG IMHO. I still maintain irregardless of the outcome (Delete or Keep) of this AfD I feel its would benefit the article to move back to "Draft". The discussion of it being "salted" is a bit excessive. EricFishers11 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the viewpoint that this article can seem a bit promotional in describing the corporation's products, however, it has significant coverage of sources that meet the requirements per WP:HEY. I feel like a clean-up is required of the article though, but thats not to say it doesn't meet notability. GR86 (📱) 17:43, 30 October 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. Noting also the BLP concerns and that the subject is a relatively low-profile person who has requested deletion. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Shimoda[edit]

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: The subject is a relatively low-profile person and has requested deletion here. gnu 57 20:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Food and drink. gnu 57 20:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see evidence for the level of coverage required to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability is borderline, with a couple good sources in the article as well as some routine coverage. I would normally find myself leaning more towards keep, but with the deletion request, possibility of recurring blp issues, and borderline notability I think deletion is the right call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator Speedy delete per BLP, I won’t fight about it. Trillfendi (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Meets WP:A7. RAN1 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RAN1, I think that's a stretch, there is certainly some significant coverage shown in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Well she's a chef/restaurant owner with coverage, but I think wellness sections are primary sources. RAN1 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so far the best coverage I have found is a 2016 New York Times article about her, her food, and some recipes. I will poke around a little more. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no additional reliable sources beyond what I added to the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. BLP issues appear to remain in the edit history and may have been repeatedly added, which seems to broadly support adding some WP:SALT to the title. Beccaynr (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I would consider changing my !vote if the subject agrees to WP:PROTECT the article as an alternative to deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of a biography has no say in whether an article is protected - that would be a very poor precedent to set. Furthermore, pre-emptive protection is against policy, and articles are never permanently protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my limited view, based only on the edit history that is visible to me, I would go to WP:RFPP and request page protection based on persistent disruptive editing and repeated attempts to add apparent BLP policy violations, not a request for pre-emptive protection. Based on the subject's deletion request, they may not realize we have an alternative to deletion, and they might change their deletion request if the article is protected (perhaps indefinitely, due to the apparent BLP issues), per our policy that may apply to what has happened to this article. This is not intended to give the subject a say in whether the article is protected, but instead an attempt to give them more information about our processes so they can make an informed choice with regard to requesting deletion of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a request at RFPP. Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection was declined (Special:PermanentLink/1117948424#Jasmine_Shimoda), so deletion appears to be the best option for an article that has needed revdel from its creation and much of its history, and still has BLP violations visible in its history. Beccaynr (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and let's start looking at a SNOW close. As others have stated, her notability is borderline, and there is a request plausibly from the subject to remove the article. I note that the allegations are foundational in the edit history and still appear in diffs despite the extensive revdel. I believe if this is kept all revisions prior to the afd will have to be removed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:31, 28 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SensUs[edit]

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources which indicate it meets WP:GNG Article created wholly by members of the student committee. Equine-man (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, Science, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Entirely referenced to the competition's website, and is currently written as a form of advertising for the competition. I could find zero independent secondary sources; although I did find some university publications applauding their students who won the competition. However, I would not consider these independent as they have a PR interest. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:SIGCOV. It is possible that the competition could be redirected to the Eindhoven University of Technology and mentioned there very briefly providing a secondary source is located. A student run organization at that institution is responsible for the entire competition.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG by looking at the current sources and doing a quick search. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 19:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. I also did a quick search but did not find anything significant which can be counted as a "Reliable or Notable Source' Fifthapril (talk) 05:08, 25 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The shortest joke[edit]

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

There are two reasons for deleting this article, either of which would be sufficient on its own.

First, it's not notable. The only real source (the others are just for examples of short jokes) is a PhD dissertation, which is not a reliable source. I was unable to find any other source on the web. Additionally, that mention of the shortest joke is just one paragraph in a 250-page work, so it's questionable whether this would constitute significant coverage even if it were a reliable source.

Second, the article as written is original research. The source is about Russian "Anekdoty", but the article generalizes this to short jokes from all countries. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:No original research. The sources do not support the topic, and this is an entirely original idea. That said, I strongly disagree with the nominator that a PhD dissertation published by the University of Pittsburgh should be classified as "unreliable". Dissertations go through scrupulous editorial review by an expert faculty panel before publishing, and should be considered reliable. That said, the dissertation is about Russian anekdoty, and not short jokes in general. It would be a perfectly acceptable source within the article on Russian jokes.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. Consider my text suitably modified. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR (specifically WP:SYNTH) and 4meter4 above; none of the sources are implying this is a notable general concept, and the paper seems mostly focused on humor in Russian cultures with a brief discussion of short jokes, and doesn't make any broader statements about short jokes (unless I'm missing something). The Russian concept of anekdoty might be notable, but there's not enough here to justify a move. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Germany, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, nothing substantial on which to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Summit, New Jersey with prejudice against recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Radest[edit]

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

This is an article for the mayor of a small city in New Jersey. The sources provided are utterly trivial, covering 1) her role as mayor, 2) her unopposed election and 3) a state of the city speech. There is no in-depth coverage in the article and I was unable to find in a Google search any of the in-depth material about her in reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. All of the sources are entirely local and do not demonstrate the subject has notability outside of her small city.4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page has already been reviewed and deemed Notable due to the fact she is the current mayor of the city. I'll look for some other sources regardless. Scu ba (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy which says that one is granted notability simply by being a "current" mayor. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless the article was approved for notability when it had 3 sources, now it has 12. I believe these sources warrants notable mention in the media. Scu ba (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no process for "approving" the notability of any article that wasn't created via the WP:AFC process. It exists because you created it, not because anybody "approved" it. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, there is no "approval" process that supersedes the requirement to demonstrate notability through in-depth coverage in independent reliable and verifiable sources. None of the 12 references meet that standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/ (partial merge) to List of mayors of Summit, New Jersey. Djflem (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. The footnoting here is not sufficient to establish the notability of a small-town mayor: half of the footnotes are primary sources, such as her "staff" profile on the city government's website and other content self-published by organizations that she's directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability at all. Then half of the other half come from Patch, a site which exists entirely to provide local-interest stories about local-interest topics that aren't significant enough for real media to bother with, so it doesn't represent WP:GNG-building coverage or analysis either. And then once we've discounted those too, what's left on the table after that still isn't cutting it, as it comprises two articles about other people that happen to glancingly namecheck Nora Radest's existence and a radio interview in which Nora Radest is the speaker rather than the subject being spoken about, which doesn't help to build notability. GNG isn't just "count the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number" — it evaluates the footnotes for their type, quality, depth and geographic range, not just their raw number, and there's just nothing here that represents what's required to establish the permanent notability of a smalltown mayor. (And no, "current" has nothing to do with it, either: incumbent mayors don't get any bonus points over and above former mayors just because of incumbency status per se.) Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Bearcat. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Contributor008 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carver Commodore[edit]

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

This article is about a band lacking the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article is to spotify, apple music store, and the band's youtube channel. The best I could find in terms of coverage is article from a local TV station about bands returning to in person concerts. Aside from this, all I could find were concert listings and appearance mentions at music festivals. Whpq (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator of the page, did not add any of the apple music, youtube, or spotify sources. I had this article as a source for the bio, this bio can also be found on a couple other websites. The discography and references inside the discography sections were added into the article by carvercommodorecomrade.

MaxCupstid 17:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bio on a site that provides artist management or publishing services to the group. That's not independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no sources that contain independent significant coverage of the band. There were a few local news articles where they were mentioned in passing, but nothing where they were covered in detail. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBAND.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and 4meter4 as not notable. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with nominator, my search returned social media, ticket sales, music sales but no independent 3rd party mentions Josey Wales^Parley 21:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC, can't find any independent secondary sources to verify notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:15, 25 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Individuated Hobbit[edit]

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

This book is not notable. Despite quite strenuous efforts, this article has minimal, indeed insufficient sourcing. The two sources given are both brief mentions in articles about broader topics within the (large) field of Tolkien scholarship. The fact is that in over 40 years, hardly any Tolkien scholars or critics have thought it necessary to mention this book; and that is despite the fact that its subject, Jungian archetypes in Tolkien's work, have been the subject of numerous works of scholarship. Pia Skogemann, in her book on the subject, does briefly mention O'Neill, to say that his interpretation of the Ring as wholeness is wrong (it's the opposite, Middle-earth is healed when it's destroyed; and Frodo isn't healed at all). O'Neill's book is a minor work, written with insufficient understanding of psychology, and scholarship has judged it not worth bothering with. We should do the same. But I'd not oppose merging it, for example to the article on its author, Timothy O'Neill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and influential book

Tolkien scholar Thomas Honegger called it "the unsurpassed standard work on the subject" (2019)
"a compelling and influential Jungian reading" (2013) by Christopher Vaccaro, editor of The Body in Tolkien's Legendarium

The opinion of the nominator this is a "minor" work is their own. It is contradicted by reliable sources, which call it both "influential" (2013) and the "standard work" (2019) on Tolkien Jungian analysis. Every other book about Jungian analysis of Tolkien references this book, "scholarship has judged it not worth bothering with" is completely false. The nominator wrote the article for Timothy O'Neill (camoufleur) the author of this book. As you can see here almost no mention of the book was made in the bio. When I attempted to correct this by adding importance of the book in the lead, the nominator deleted it. The one who has judged it "not worth bothering with" is the nominator. -- GreenC 17:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid not; "notable" and "influential" can be judged only by what other scholars do. The large number of Tolkien scholars in the field has deemed this book unworthy. On the two sorry mentions, Vaccaro has made a rapid passing comment, and Honegger (whose skill is rather in translation and language, not psychology) has similarly said something brief and flattering-sounding before moving swiftly on. The most charitable interpretation of these two brief insubstantial mentions is that the scholars saw that the book existed and wanted to fill a sentence with something that sounded reasonable; if they had actually found it useful, they would presumably have made use of it, and we'd have pages of material to work with rather than these two brief quotations. O'Neill's background is in military camouflage, which does involve a branch of psychology, visual deception, in which he's an expert. That doesn't mean he's an expert in Jungian archetypes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has "judged this book unworthy" but you it appears. -- GreenC 18:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC That is a personal attack. Please retract it immediately. It's also untrue in another way, as the discussion of Skogemann above demonstrates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skoegeman just says she doesn't agree with some aspect of it, has nothing to do with the entire book being "unworthy" which is pretty strong language. Your the one making the assertion you should either back it up with sources or retract it. It's not my fault you are saying things unsupportable and strongly opinionated. -- GreenC 18:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a second personal attack, and again it is a misrepresentation. I did not say that Skogemann called the entire book unworthy; she just shows that the only thing she quotes from the entire book, which she must have read given her comment, was incorrect. As for sources, I've dealt with those you propose below: they don't establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Examples of how influential the book is

1 Harold Bloom, an important American literary scholar, included an chapter-length excerpt in his book J. R. R. Tolkien (2000)
2 It is mentioned throughout Cross-currents of Jungian thought: an annotated bibliography (1991)
3 Discussed in The Hobbit: a journey into maturity (1995)
4 Discussed in Readings on J.R.R. Tolkien (2000)
5 Discussed in Jung and the outside world (1992)
6 The Annotated Hobbit, an official version edited by Tolkien scholar Douglas A. Anderson and published by Houghton Mifflin, includes it in its bibliography, which is very selective only a few pages long.

-- GreenC 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's analyse those "influential" mentions then:

1 Bloom: including an excerpt is not critical comment or analysis, it's just a primary (O'Neill) fragment; perhaps Bloom had a book to fill and was happy to use some pages to occupy the space. It doesn't prove anything.

2 Annotated bibliography: isn't detailed critical analysis, doesn't establish notability.

3 Green - this is a brief paragraph (11 short lines) which says it's impossible for a short book adequately to apply Jung's complex theories to Tolkien's lengthy writings. Green comments that the best O'Neill can do is to assert that Beorn (the skin-changing bear-man) is (he quotes O'Neill) '"in the general category of Self symbols because of his symbolic hermaphrodism"'. This doesn't establish notability, though it sounds as if Green thinks O'Neill is way out of his depth.

4 O'Neill - this is a brief (primary) account by O'Neill himself, it obviously isn't independent and doesn't contribute to notability.

5 Ulanov - just over 1 page of commentary, probably counts for notability, though it says little beyond that Ulanov found it interesting.

6 Listed in Annotated Hobbit's booklist: isn't critical comment or analysis, is just a list entry, doesn't establish notability.

If anyone seriously thinks these sad entries establish notability, all I can say is, the bar for notability must be pretty low then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said "how influential the book is". Influential is important because it is "a compelling and influential Jungian reading". You incorrectly asserted "unworthy", you said hardly anyone "mentions the book", that is clearly incorrect. -- GreenC 19:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are hardly any substantial mentions: there is perhaps one such so far, Ulanov. Chiswick Chap (talk)#

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK per the evidence supplied by GreenC. Experts in the field assert importance of the book in publications which should be weighed in favor of keeping the article. The source analysis by Chiswick Chap is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the analysis can be so described: it's completely transparent and everybody can check it against the sources. I've never heard of a presumption in favour of keeping, that seems completely broken as a process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap you deleted my comment in this edit. I have restored it, and added a bit more to my original opinion. You should not remove the comments made by other editors.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I did that, there was an edit conflict which I thought I'd sorted out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. Christensen, Bonniejean (September 1980). "The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien, and the Archetypes of Middle-Earth". Christianity & Literature. 29 (4): 78–79. doi:10.1177/014833318002900424. JSTOR 44310752. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  This is a 473-word book review. The book review notes: "The author attempts to superimpose Jungian analysis on works of fiction, discussing his conception of Jungian theory and providing a glossary of key terms, then applying all this to The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion. ... One might well argue that the difference between a fairy and a goblin is not really important: the theory still operates over the general text. And that, I think, is the problem. Here is an all-purpose theory that will, like a bushel basket, fit over a candle. But it does not permit much light to shine through."
2. "The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien, and the Archetypes of Middle-Earth". Virginia Quarterly Review. 56 (3): 92. Summer 1980. JSTOR 26436036. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  This is a 139-word book review. The book review notes: "This highly original work seeks to explain Tolkien's amazing hold on the modern imagination in terms of his independent and parallel development of the themes comprising Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. Rather surprisingly, O'Neill makes of this provocative explanation a tenable hypothesis. ... The study falters only when it gropes for evidence of direct influence by Jung on the thought of Professor Tolkien."
3. Kocher, Paul H. (1979). "The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien, and the Archetypes of Middle-Earth". Mythlore. 6 (4): 25. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  The book review notes: "The dangers of this procedure are obvious, and O'Neill is aware of them. He seeks to nullify them, however, by pointing to many coincidences between Jung and Tolkien from which he sees Jung's "theme of Self-realization" emerging in a way that cannot be merely accidental (pp. 161ff). The reader must judge these for himself. ... O'Neill's book as a whole is written pleasingly, with grace and ease."
4. "The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien, and the Archetypes of Middle-Earth". Journal of Analytical Psychology. 26 (3): 291. July 1981. doi:10.1111/j.1465-5922.1981.00289.x. ISSN 0021-8774. EBSCOhost 12201770. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  This is an 82-word book review. The book review notes: "In his preface of this book, the author apologises for any inaccuracies in his interpretation of Jungian theory—his real field is the psychophysics of camouflage! Introduced by a friend to Tolkien's work, and by an aunt to Jung's, he became fascinated by both writers. The opening section of the book is a short, lucid introduction of Jung's theories, and it is followed by a commentary of the themes and characters of The Lord of the Rings as seen through Jungian eyes."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Individuated Hobbit to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the (rather mixed) reviews of the book and its author are clearly enough for us to get the article up to a decent standard, so I'm happy to withdraw the AfD nomination now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This ref mentioned above meets WP:SIGCOV, while Cunard's last ref is too short IMO at 82-words, the first review and third one is definitely also WP:SIGCOV, second one probably too despite still being a bit short 139-words. Therefore, with 3 or 4 refs counting towards WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK I support keeping this article, but it needs improvement and expansion. VickKiang (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews establish that WP:NBOOK is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SCLOSE. Nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination if an argument for deletion based in policy is made. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M&M's Break' Em[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been tagged for over a year and still no improvement since the last AFD. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Procedural. No deletion argument presented. That no one bothered to work on it since the last AFD does not change the last AFD's conclusions that enough sourcing existed per WP:NEXIST. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was only 3 reliable sources mentioned in the Afd and one of the sources only had a small mention of the game. As for my self I couldn’t find any other sources on the web or newspapers. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please advance an actual deletion rationale, you've yet to do so. Under what policy? For what reasoning? The nominator is required to do this. IGN, GameZone, Gry Online, Nintendojo, all full reviews from WP:VG/S reliable listed sources. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this already survived an AFD, and not only does this nomination not advance any further/new argument, it actually violates WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for deletion outside asking for us to work on it, and a good generic stub overall. Maybe the nom could improve the article themselves rather than run to deletion? Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 23 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Alley Espresso[edit]

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

Of the 12 sources on this page, 11 are the barest of passing mentions noting just this generic coffee shop's location at the market or its current or former owners. Only source 4 gives one full paragraph about this, a listicle mention for a local lifestyle website that the author likes its mocha. There is not substantive enough sourcing to pass WP:NORG. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Washington. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I watch coffee in Seattle articles, of which this is one. Nominator is correct that the sources give little info; however the sources are more than passing mentions in that they give facts that are beyond opinions. Sources establish that this place is part of a historically significant and touristed district in Seattle; it is liked among reviewers for being a coffee house, it is haunted, and it has a business history. This place is in reviews a couple of times a year since 2013. I would not call any single source "significant coverage", but collectively for the ~10 year period, there are 10 sources each reviewing this place, and the sum of all the sources is significant. As far as coffeehouses go, having 10 published brief reviews still puts a place among the top 1% for getting attention. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). Once again, nominator flags an article for deletion immediately following creation with an assessment of current sourcing instead of all possible sourcing. I've expanded the entry with more sources, which range from business journals to books (fiction and nonfiction), newspapers (local, regional, and international), and food industry websites. There's enough coverage to give readers a description, operational history, and reception. I agree with Bluerasberry, the cumulative coverage counts. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage by the existing sources for a business as defined at WP:NBUSINESS sometimes falls between "trivial" and "substantial" but I don't agree with nom that it is "bare mention". Take the item from The National for instance: it is a full paragraph with comments on the building's history, the specific formulation of the drink available, and the model of the espresso machine in use! This isn't a routine bought/sold notice as we sometimes see in dodgy business articles. I think the weight of the many sources meets GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really good starter article, well sourced and appears to meet GNG, perfectly acceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 26 October 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 Saputo Dairy UK with prejudice against recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly Butterly[edit]

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

A brand of dairy product. Notability per WP:GNG is not apparent from the article or from a Google News search. Sandstein 15:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Sandstein 15:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can find are sales listing for various grocery stores in the UK and some listings in India sold by Amul. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, although I may be wrong, that the Amul references are to an advertising slogan for an unrelated product. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with deleting, the article seems to serve no practical purpose.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saputo Dairy UK per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This product is the subject of a case study on pages 184-188 of ISBN 9781136361265, published by Taylor & Francis, and has a little coverage, saying that it gained 20% of the market, on page 39 of ISBN 9780749462741, published by Kogan Page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 25 October 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walton Danforth Stowell[edit]

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

I do not believe this man meets our notability guidelines. He appears to have been a prolific employee of the National Park Service, but I'm not sure he rises the level called for by WP:ARCHITECT #1. The article is clearly refbombed. My BEFORE did not find any SIGCOV beyond his obituary in either newspaper or scholarly sources. Bringing this to AFD rather than PROD because there is a previous deletion discussion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and West Virginia. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not written from a "fan" point of view, it is entirely neutral. The external links are provided to document Stowell's accomplishments.

Stowell was more than a long time park ranger. As documented in the article he was one of the first generation historical preservationists contributing the the Historic American Buildings Survey and well known by those in the field. He was responsible for leading the effort in 1979 time frame getting Harpers Ferry, a major historical site, on the National Register for Historic Places. He made measured drawings of important historical structures in Jefferson County, WV. He was responsible for the effort to save and restore the iconic Harpers Ferry Train Depot. And was responsible for surveys and designs for restoration of many historical structures throughout the US. And interpretive exhibits at many National Parks.

This article should only being deleted if someone with historical preservation credentials says Stowell was NOT notable. Burgessdr (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't judge notability based on the opinion of "someone with historical preservation credentials." We have certain standards as I have noted in my rationale. The sources in the article merely note that Stowell existed and worked on various projects. They don't give significant coverage about him, as required by our policies. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Fundamental POV issues. It is also uncertain whether WP:NBIO is met, since there seems to be a lack of in-depth coverage of the individual in sources that are independent of his former organisations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much found, his son I think was an artist, I get a few hits for him. Nothing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I could find nothing in my university library. I checked newspaper and journal archives and found nothing substantial. The sources with in-depth coverage in the article are all closely connected to the subject and lack independence. Many of them are primary sources as well. Undoubtedly this person would be worthy of some attention by a researcher and deserves coverage, but we are not the forum to do that per our policy of WP:No original research. Without independent reliable secondary sources, there isn't enough evidence to establish notability under our policies.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify I can't believe that this article would be deleted because two editors didn't find supporting citations in their own searches. I just see dismissal of the sources, not much of an evaluation. If they are insufficient, I think that this article should be Draftified rather than Deleted so that it can be improved through editing. I don't see a necessity for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify article needs to be "wikified", but there is enough to work with. Djflem (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think the subject may be notable, but the article needs a major overhaul. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I am also happy with draftifying. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:02, 27 October 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!} 06:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Danielsen[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. Most citations, which come from majority-unreliable sources, only briefly mention her in relation to her daughter. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Novemberjazz 00:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Novemberjazz has misunderstood something: the "Farrah Abrams Mother" is the name of a show, not a relationship between her an a daughter. She is Debra Danielson of Farrah Abrams Mother, but seems to have ended up mainly known as "Farrah Abrams Mom." That said, that only refutes the "not inherited" but not the GNG reasons. Because this is about a celebrity, I am going to plead 'uninformed' and let others vote. A quick search turns up results but I don't know how to interpret them. Lamona (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Novemberjazz 23:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novemberjazz You're right. At this moment I don't understand what I meant, but I'm going to try to recreate it. Lamona (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's sharing sexy photos in People and meeting her daughter, and similar celebrity gossip fluff. I can't find enough for GNG or to base an article on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 23 October 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 Tripura University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netaji Subhash Mahavidyalaya, Udaipur[edit]

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

WP:MILL institute, no evidence of notability per WP:NSCHOOL. Affiliated college, not "independently accredited degree-awarding institution" so WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES would not apply, even if it was a valid argument. Going through sources per WP:BEFORE the institute is mentioned here and there e.g. Education in North East India: Experience and Challenge or the Universities Handbook but I could not find in-depth coverage. PROD denied. Proposing redirect to Tripura University, the affiliating university, or deletion as a second option. Muhandes (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tripura. Muhandes (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*soft delete According to me we should promote education but any college promoting itself in the name of education is not right then yaha is not right by looking at this page it seems that it is a private college but there is no such reference WP:GNG in it so that it is a notable college. Lionfox0909 (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionfox0909: Soft delete is impossible, PROD was denied. Note that I am not proposing deletion, I am proposing redirection. Muhandes (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tripura University- lacks coverage to support a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:45, 29 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty MacLean[edit]

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

Fails GNG. This was the only thing I could find on her and it's nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 23 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson (footballer)[edit]

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

She fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. There are just trivial mentions of her in the press. The Rangers website isn't independent of her. Dougal18 (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, similar to her Rangers teammate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jodi_McLeary. She is 16 years old. Highly likely that she will merit a Wikipedia article of her own in the future, but that can be created once the SIGCOV is there to back it up. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the view that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She may well be the subject of an article in the future as her career progresses, but at the moment has not achieved sufficient notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Macaroni[edit]

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

Previously deleted for notability, PROD by Explicit earlier this year sums it up so neatly, I'll make it the text of this nomination. "As per WP:FILMMAKER / WP:Notability (artists) This filmmaker is not an important figure and is not widely cited by peers. This person has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work has not been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination (and prod), it appears that WP:NFILMMAKER isn't met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, also the subject is not yet notable. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DZUR[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BCAST. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing that will pass BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unlicensed pirate operation. Nate • (chatter) 18:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Will you please redirect to Pirate radio in Asia if you like. 49.145.111.141 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The pirate station gained notoriety back in the late 2000s. There may be sources about it during that period, but they're hard to find nowadays. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 30 October 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!} 08:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Theodora[edit]

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

Non-notable routine career. The references are about his cases, not himself. Being involved in few cases involving notable people is not notability DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Attorney notability is not inherited from clients (or else I would belong in the encyclopedia, which I'm sure I don't). There does not seem to be anything else remarkable about this subject. BD2412 T 21:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. W 42 17:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage exists like William H. Ginsburg (another trial lawyer). This book covers him well. Maria Walbaum (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We judge notablity of an author by his books (critical reviews of his work, etc.), likewise a lawyer by the cases he won/lost. The cases he was part of already have pages about them. Maria Walbaum (talk) 15:53, 25 October 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!} 08:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sullivan[edit]

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

Borderline notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Food and drink, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found multiple articles covering Sullivan and her restaurants. Certainly some of them are local to Tennessee, but she and the restaurant have made the short lists for James Beard Awards, and she is in articles in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Vogue magazine. See the page for the citations. Collected together, these make her notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered by Food & Wine, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, and Vogue. She's notable. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable per above.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't see how the subject "borderlines notability" when she is very well covered in industry publications and major media outlets about her work. Also, I sincerely hope this isn't another case of discrimination against women on Wikipedia, where most chefs are men? Idunnox3 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 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 HyperTalk#Descendants of HyperTalk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XTalk[edit]

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

only source in article is the "HyperTalk Reference stack" (referenced 3 times), likely a primary source that doesn't establish notability. besides that, the article is also really bad and should be blown up. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 09:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 09:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight: not sure why this is an AfD rather than a merge proposal to HyperTalk (admittedly we'd have to throw away most of it since it's bad, as you said) DFlhb (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HyperTalk#Descendants of HyperTalk. The one and only reference, "HyperTalk Reference stack", is a hypertext guide for HyperTalk on Apple Mac specifically, not for XTalks generally, so is not reliable for what it is citing. This is abundantly clear from the refs title, but is also confirmed in this book. and others. SpinningSpark 16:22, 23 October 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!} 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidovich Bagels[edit]

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

This article is an advert throughout its history. Little notability, should be merged. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it had a write-up in the WSJ so there's that. JMWt (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet notability [10] [11] [12] [13] Andre🚐 21:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the WSJ given above and the 5th citation for CBS news seem ok-ish. The others listed above appear to be blogs, sort-of RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 23 October 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!} 08:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura McCartney[edit]

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

Similar case to Jodi McLeary, which is heading for a deletion. None of the current sources used satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as they are not independent and therefore do not confer notability. SPORTBASIC specifically states that team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject so the coverage from the official websites and social media pages for Glasgow City, Rangers and Motherwell must be ignored. My search of independent sources found nothing better than a squad list mention in The Scotsman and a passing mention in a match report in Daily Record. Likely WP:TOOSOON along with McLeary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also struggled to find any coverage that could possibly considered WP:SIRS on this footballer. This matches my experience looking at other typical squad players in the Scottish top flight, as opposed to a club's top players and full internationals. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Salem, Tamil Nadu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Priyadarshini[edit]

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

Mayors are not notable by default. The subject has just been a candidate in general assembly elections and not entered any legislative office. As such this fails, WP:NPOL, and I did not find anything on google that might help it pass WP:GNG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG Priyadarshini attracted significant attention for being the youngest mayor of India. [14] [15] [16] W 42 13:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayor is a near in every district of India, for which he should be more than 18 years, if a person becomes notable by becoming mayor, then Rekha is notable, but just because you become mayor at a young age, you are considered notable, it would be wrong to say Rekha would have become mayor only after the age of 18, so it is wrong to say that he is the youngest mayor.

Any news reference posted on this page is local reference we cannot trust this news links so it fails in WP:GNG. Lionfox0909 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>> List of mayors of Salem, Tamil Nadu. Djflem (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. Mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, and neither are unelected candidates for higher offices — and no, just happening to be the youngest mayor serving in the country at one particular time isn't in and of itself a notability freebie either. The key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article doesn't hinge on verifying that she exists, but requires writing and sourcing genuine substance about her political impact: specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded as mayor, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no content of that ilk here. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 26 October 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!} 08:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Grebenyuk[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and Russian-language coverage is trivial, such as entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kazakhstan. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is some coverage in the Russian language on Kazakh websites which might be considered slightly more than a passing mention. ProSports and Sports - the second one is primarily a Q&A but does contain a small amount of independent content at the start. I can't comment on whether the websites are reliable or not. Not sure it's enough in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Search in Kazakh didn't turn up anything non-trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 23 October 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 SmartBus#Routes. The consensus of this AFD is to redirect this article. Do not undo this redirection. You can, if you want, develop an article in Draft space and submit it for review to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

901 (PTV Bus)[edit]

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

This bus route is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Redirect to Smart Bus#Routes was reverted by article creator with no improvements to show the route is notable. Whpq (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dan arndt has created a second deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/901 (PTV Bus) (2nd nomination). I am copying his comment to this discussion, and I shall then delete that duplicate AfD page. JBW (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note 2:I created a second deletion discussion only because the article's creator blanked this AfD discussion and removed the header from the article, as a result I was unaware that this AfD existed. Dan arndt (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to Smart Bus#Routes. Article fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. A bus timetable is not an acceptable source. Department of Transport (Victoria) and Kinetic Melbourne are both primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated to you the following on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/903 (PTV Bus). A bus timetable is a reliable and acceptable source for determing what stops the bus route serves, to back it up for there were two sources for this a primary source (PTV) and a secondary Source (Moovit) NotOrrio. I know one of the arguments to avoid using in deletion is to not mention other articles but I want to show that stop information used as a source for where the bus serves is the norm for wikipeida bus route pages for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Buses_route_1&direction=next&oldid=983282445 uses the source https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/1 for the section current route.

NotOrrio (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a bus timetable is perfectly acceptable to use as a source for determing what stops a bus route has however they aren't reliable or acceptable sources to establish the bus routes notability. In respect to the London bus route you have referred to, it is notable because it demonstrates there is significant coverage, not mentions in passing, in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. This is not independently notable, and no amount of bludgeoning, attempting to circumvent AfD, and deception by the article creator will change this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Just another run of the mill bus route that doesn't require special treatment with its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there is enough reliable sources to deem this article notable with primary sources backed up with secondary source. People contesting for deletion will continously suggest this article to be deleted regardless of whether there are enough reliable sources or not. Whpq has consistently made source assesments with minimal research to benefit his push to what he wants to do with the article, most deletion attempts are likely just a case of (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) (talk) 1:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boundless (production company)[edit]

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

Non-notable and fails WP:NCORP. Repeatedly created after deletions and redirects, see log. Sources are either routine releases or trivial mentions discussing splits and mergers falling under standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage. WP:BEFORE found only routine news on merging, see 1. VickKiang (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources given don't meet the significant coverage aspect of WP:GNG. I suppose I could see a redirect to Naked (production company), but I'm not sold on that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted once by PROD but contested so is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In fact, I do not think that Naked (production company) is notable either, so I will AfD it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article describing a succession of divisional rebrands within Fremantle (company) and the productions which were for a time allocated to this particular operating unit. Industry coverage based on the associated announcements is not, I think, of sufficient significance to demonstrate notability. Looking at this across the board, there is some coverage of the unit restructurings at Fremantle (company) and list coverage of productions at List of Fremantle productions for this and other Fremantle subsidiaries, which I think is sufficient, though a redirect to one or other could be an option. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 23 October 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!} 08:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ülo Adamson[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. I don't trust myself to do a proper Estonian WP:BEFORE search, but see discussion at User_talk:Estopedist1#Ülo_Adamson from people who know better. Ovinus (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Estonia. Ovinus (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prodded it, which was reverted without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Estonian resistance fighter fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blooket[edit]

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

Notability not indicated. There are a bunch of "how-to" guides—which I don't find convincing for WP:NCORP notability—and various reviews of the product, but nothing about the company itself. There are [17] and [18], but these are not independent. Ovinus (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Education. Ovinus (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Per a clarification with the article creator, NCORP is the correct SNG to use here. Per the source assessment below none of the sources count towards WP:GNG.
However, pending the outcome of a discussion between the article creator, User:VickKiang, and myself, I could be convinced to change this to Draftify on the proviso that the article is re-written with the primary topic changing to the website of the same name instead of the company. There are potentially sufficient sources that it could meet WP:NWEB already present in the article, with one more identified on the creator's talk page. But even such a refactoring may be borderline non-notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as a company. No prejudice against recreation as a article about the website if good sources can be found. — ^Clyde!_Franklin! 23:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sideswipe9th
https://blooket.github.io/popularity#:~:text=Current%20Figures,almost%205%20million%20registered%20users.	Github page belonging to the company	Self published entry on page controlled by company		✘ No
https://www.the-next-tech.com/entertainment/blooket/		? Site claims to be a "news and article publishing portal", but the article ends with "That’s all in this blog."	Most of the content is on how to use the site. There is nothing about the company with the same name.	✘ No
https://www.techlearning.com/how-to/what-is-blooket-and-how-does-it-work-tips-and-tricks			As with the previous source, content is about the product not the company. It could likely demonstrate SIGCOV for the site however.	✘ No
https://leedaily.com/2022/04/16/blooket/		Though undiscussed, source does appear to meet criterial for WP:RS, as it has a fact checking and editorial policy. Though it takes guest article submissions, this article is written by a staff member.	As with the previous source, this article is about the product and not the company. Could possibly be used to demonstrate SIGCOV for the product.	✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/inno/stories/profiles/2021/09/14/inno-5-under-25-ben-stewart.html	This is a profile on Blooket's founder, and does not appear to be independent.	Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#Business_Journals_/_bizjournals.com	Content on the company is minimal, only two paragraphs consisting of 91 words, so fails WP:100WORDS	✘ No
https://www.thelostgamer.com/blooket-play/		? Site's former name was GameStyle, which is listed on WP:VG/S as "inconclusive". There's no editorial or fact checking policy listed on the site, so I can't assess if it meets RS criteria.	As with sources 2, 3, and 4, this is an article on the product, not the company. As with source 2, this begins with a guide on how to use the site. Towards the end of the article there is sufficient content about the experience of using the site that it could potentially demonstrate SIGCOV for the product.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete per nom and Sideswipe9th if we're looking at WP:NCORP. Neutral if the article is rebranded to discuss about the website instead of the company. There is a discussion at User talk:Darth-Wiki-Man#Blooket, the user stated that It is mainly about the company, but I tried to focus on the website in the way that Kahoot! and Quizizz did. Please feel free to give me suggestions, Thank you! So, if this is a company-related article, notability isn't inherited from a borderline notable product. Current refs- ref 1 is a SPS, refs 2 and 6 aren't RS, ref 2 describes itself as a blog with a poor About us, likewise, this ref has no editorial policies so I'm not confident if it's RS, and it's apparently listed on WP:VG/RS as inconclusive per Sideswipe9th. The rest of the three refs currently available are (generously speaking) generally reliable (one of the refs is decent with a lengthy about us page but I can't find any editorial policies). However, all of these refs discuss the product, not the company itself. If we rebrand the article so that it's about the website, then I'd be at neutral, as there are three refs that discuss the product in decent detail, 1, 2, 3, even though the Lee Daily one is mainly a how-to guide that leans on the routine side and is debatably SIGCOV. However, as the article currently stands, it's mainly about an organisation, thus WP:NCORP is failed. VickKiang (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StormMQ[edit]

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

Software Project/Company that appears to have shutdown around 2016, Website offline since 2018. Github site not updated since 2017. No sign of widespread use. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and England. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StormMQ still exists but not in its original form. The only historic reason to retain a mention is that it was a major contributor to the AMQP 1.0 and MQTT ISO standards.

No longer active as a company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.55.171 (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn't pass WP:NSOFT or WP:NCORP (looks like the page is about the software, but neither seems satisfied). I can't actually find any independent coverage; besides Crunchbase, LinkedIn, and Github, it's all self-published press releases, slide decks, and whitepapers ([19], [20], [21]). Participating in the AMQP working group ([22]) definitely isn't enough to establish notability for either the company or the software. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources found. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 19:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see some passing mentions but no in-depth, high-quality sources to satisfy GNG. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 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!} 08:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Mark[edit]

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

Lawyer BLP doesn't seem to meet NBIO- subject lacks in-depth coverage, since most independent sources are just WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as written. Notability is not inherited from famous clients any more than from famous family. While the death of the subject's child was tragic, and their memorial effort magnanimous, neither of these facts is a basis for notability either. BD2412 T 03:17, 23 October 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.