< May 11	May 13 >

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

The result was delete‎. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Basketball Shoes[edit]

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

Article is not written in an encyclopedic tone (written as an essay), non-neutral, and contains original research. I'm suggesting deletion based on WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Could be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think an alternative to deletion would be better here. Along with the two already cited, I can find a few general sources[1][2][3] on evolution/history of basketball shoes, a lot of focus on NBA signature shoes, and there are other articles on history of specific players' shoes like Jordan's or Lebrons'. Portions that aren't already mentioned could be merged into the history section of Sneakers. Whether we need a split Basketball Shoe article before a history of basketball shoes, or if this should be a "History of Sneakers" in general instead is another discussion. It might be better to work on this on a draft to decide what it should be, and whether it would just suffice in another article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with the WP:NOTESSAY argument. --MuZemike 01:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not an inherently bad idea for an article. There is a lot of meat to this topic. I'm surprised we don't even have a dedicated basketball shoe page. (That link is just a redirect.) Yes, the article would need some work to fit modern Wiki standards, but I think there's potential here. Maybe move to draft space? Zagalejo (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as to tone, afd is not cleanup. The article uses some poor sources (non-independent sources + self published sources including substack posts), but there is enough to establish notability apart from them. Should be renamed to History of basketball shoes, though. small jars tc 15:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ah, an old timey style wikipedia article that isn't sourced, but that has too much info to be fake news. I'd BLAR and TNT. I suppose we could make something out of this, but none of the sources used are good enough as a starting point. Would seem to be an exercise in futility. We'd have to draftify and hope someone adopts the stub. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, OR/SYNTH essay, if there is a notable topic here (I think there is), this will need TNT to make room for it, most of the article. // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above SYNTH/ESSAY concerns. I believe there is some level of notability to this topic and parts of the article in its current state can be used if properly sourced, and this can eventually be resubmitted at AFC, preferably under a new title. Frank Anchor 18:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content into the "History" section of Sneakers per WikiVirusC, and convert this into a redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Keep, Delete, Merge or Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Topic may have some merit, but that can be decided later at AfC. Personally I’d prefer a section in basketball shoe written in summary style, but I’m voting draftify rather than merge to give the editing community a chance to improve it. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTESSAY and as others have suggested this could possibly trip over SYNTH and OR as well. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to move the article to use sentence case per MOS, but I’m not sure if it would interfere with the debate. I don’t think so, but it’s best to be sure… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A badly conceived content fork. There's a kernel for a worthy page here but this work is quite malformed and way SYNTHY. Not the place to start a draft, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree that it's best to start over, rather than send back to AfC. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:43, 22 May 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York[edit]

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

This article needs additional citations for verification. (Since August 2019) This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (Since August 2019) This article may contain improper references to user-generated content. (Since August 2019) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a Violation of WP:NOTCATALOG PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is one of numerous AFDs on similar topics:

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (2nd nomination)
- List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach whose name hides the fact that the AFD proposes to delete tallest buildings lists of areas of more renown:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden

Sorry this notice of the other AFDs is not timely, I wasn't aware any of these were going on. Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another list of unremarkably tall, mostly non-notable buildings in a mid-sized city, based solely on a now-defunct user-generated database. The tallest building, State Tower Building, is 312 feet (95 m) tall. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There are now 13 inline references and one bibliography item in the article (vs. 4 references to Emporis pages previously). One new one is this list of Syracuses top 10 buildings supplied by Council on Tall Buildings and Urban something, which I guess is a successor to Emporis, may have user-supplied data, I dunno. I also think user-supplied data can be fine, and I am not aware of any big problems with Emporis data. Anyhow there are other sources in linked articles, with some now in this article (put in by me). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, at the Sunny Isles Beach AFD, B137 commented on May 15 that the Emporis replacement is reliable: "There is a reliable source, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, CTBUH, that not only categorizes cities' lists and geographical lists, but that also uses databases or FAA filings to correct the actual height of as built buildings, not just the initial height claims a proposed new building has." Thank you to B137. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User generated data is against Wikipedia policy PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete while Syracuse is a notable town. The fact that these issues have been present since mid-late 2019 makes it seem like it’ll likely not be fixed

LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "issues" have been addressed; no tags remain on article; see below. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are dozens of these articles here: Template:US tallest buildings lists, many of them tagged with similar issues. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The height/size of city argument clearly does not apply here or should be considered for any article: There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline about heights of buildings. Any made are simply I DON'T LIKE (and Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). Djflem (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my long-standing and objective essay. There are at least four notable buildings of significant size. My standards are somewhat arbitrary but not a "I like" or "I don't like" type. They are objective because I have specified objective facts. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little curious, can't this kind of information be included in the article of Syracuse itself? It just consist of a table and maybe a few paragraphs, and wouldn't be too out of place in a city's article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the recent suggestion to Merge some of this content to the Syracuse article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~◆ Delete~~ ●No-Say I am not withdrawing my nomination but I honestly don't care anymore. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost all of these buildings aren't notable, there's only one source and there are no forthcoming fixes to other page issues. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply false. Six of the buildings have separate Wikipedia articles (some of which I contributed to); they are notable individually. And, the other page issues have been entirely resolved (see below). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Syracuse is not known for having particularly tall buildings, just a bunch of trivia. AryKun (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are subjective opinions which are relative. Obviously, Syracuse is in fact known, in its larger area, for having tall buildings. It is not trivial information, for many, including me. And those opinions are not relevant. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons including:
- About the issues tags, that has been resolved by removal of the tags (by me, just now). One "complaint" is that only one citation is directly given, but that ignores the fact that linked articles about individual buildings have citations. I see no specific assertion in the article which is called into question by anyone, anywhere; there are no explanations of any issues at Talk. And, from familiarity with Syracuse and its buildings in particular, I can generally corroborate the accuracy of the information in the article, including the somewhat informal discussion towards the bottom about an actually significant cancelled proposal for a new tall building. The listing and ranking of individual buildings seems about right. User:Natg 19 comments that other tallest buildings lists are similarly tagged, and that can be addressed by simply removing the tags (as I am inclined to do) or by developing the articles with additional sources. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, and sources do exist.

Update: my removal of tags including one about there being just a single source was reverted by User:Natg 19, and then I copied in references from linked articles and did other development, and I removed the tags again. Again, there is nothing in the article which is questioned by anyone. The fact that the list has long been part of Wikipedia and its information has not been disputed, tends to confirm the information. I and others familiar with Syracuse buildings don't have any complaints. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- In general "tallest buildings" are a thing, and (as noted by Tutwakhamoe above re the Syracuse article) it is okay to cover them in an article about a city or other area, and it is an editing decision to split them out of the city article.
- Lists of tallest buildings worldwide, and in each nation, and in major cities, are well established things that are the subject of repeated reliable coverage. It is okay and good for Wikipedia to have a list of tallest buildings, like it has for other lists of buildings such as churches of every denomination, such as barns of certain shapes, such as clubhouses of various organizations, etc. And it is okay and good for those to be divided out by geographical area. Note it is not required for there to be any separate articles for items in a list, but there often/usually are separate articles for some, as is the case here, which tends to corroborate the significance of the list. Here, some of individual significance of the linked buildings is that they are known as being once the tallest building in Syracuse; this does support the significance of the list.
- AFD is arguably the wrong forum for merger/split proposals about lists; rather it is an editorial decision which should be discussed at Talk pages. Here, one might question whether the topic could be merged with List of tallest buildings in Upstate New York which could be modified to include some more of the tallest items from Syracuse than it already has, or could be modified to have an entire section about the tallest buildings in Syracuse (I think it is better to keep this as a separate article). The list could be entirely included as a section in Lists of tallest buildings in New York. As valid alternatives to deletion exist, there is no way this AFD should be closed "delete".
- In AFD we are required to consider alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD) and for lists of buildings such as this there are obvious alternatives (merge to Syracuse article, merge to larger areas' lists of tallest buildings).
- Fundamentally, this topic is very encyclopedic, meaning that readers expect for an encyclopedia (and especially for Wikipedia) that this kind of stuff will be covered. Encyclopedic topics include many that can be seen by some as relatively boring, mundane, not remarkable, but there are audiences for them (e.g. list of national flags by number of colors included, list of tallest building in a given city).

I may add more but am stopping here for now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons mentioned above--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete- Reasons above PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and note: Why are these a guilty until proven innocent process? Many of these are closed with less than half of 'votes' in favor, or based on weighting of opinions. B137 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a majority vote as it seems you are trying to say. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the closer is supposed to evaluate the quality of arguments, and usually should dismiss entirely the "!votes" (note the ! mark means "not" in C-language(?) computer-speak) which have no explanation, such as PaulGamerBoy's above. Plumbago Capensis's !vote does seem to me to actually refer to reasons just above it (and perhaps more) which have not been discredited; PaulGamerBoy's "reasons above" is just being contrary or glib and doesn't relate to anything AFAICT. Or, is it supposed to be agreeing with "Delete" comments above which have been which have been discredited or contradicted already, i.e. which arguably have been proven wrong? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These (barely) meet WP:CLN AOAL navigation criteria. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it provide (embedded) encyclopedic overview and insight into history, architecture, urban planning, development, housing, and lifestyle, of Syracuse. Satifies Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN (which is specific about there not being a consensus about notability of these types of XofY lists).Djflem (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2023 (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 Pamona language. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poso Pesisir language[edit]

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

To quote another editor who I asked to take a look at this, "Coastal Poso simply is a dialect of the Pamona language predominantly spoken by Muslims in the Coastal Poso area, and it differs from the interior Pamona variety spoken around Tentena (= the prestige dialect) as much as the Black Country dialect differs from Brummie English. There is no WP:SIGCOV about the Coastal Poso dialect that would justify a standalone. And there is not a single source among the references cited in that new content fork that treats this dialect as a distinct language." Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pamona language GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but carefully pruned for factual errors and made-up stuff not mentioned in the sources. I have fixed the most blatant ones. –Austronesier (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested and is reasonable. Languages in the Austronesian languages family can be so close that basic words in Tagalog, Malay, and Ilokano are mutually intelligible cognates, while their glossaries can also be distinct. I recall that President Obama's mother wrote about this phenomenon. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Just for the record, this is not about obvious cognacy between related languages. Tagalog, Malay, and Ilokano are very much not mutually intelligible; it is just easy to tell for the layperson they're related from a few identical words. That's nothing special about Austronesian languages: I can say [dat is mai̯ hau̯s] in the Moselle Franconian dialect of German, which sounds exactly like the corresponding sentence in an English variety with TH-stopping. OTOH, Poso Pesisir is almost identical to the central dialects of Pamona in every respect. There is literally more linguistic variation among Mid-Atlantic US English dialects compared to that. –Austronesier (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly sourced material with Pamona language, unneeded CFORK with a good target that will be improved after the merge. // Timothy :: talk 17:35, 19 May 2023 (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. Any adjustments to the article title and content are left to the usual editorial processes. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic parrot[edit]

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

We do not have Wikipedia articles on academic papers. This is an article on an academic paper MASQUERADING as an article on a new AI term. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any examples of the term being used outside of the academic paper. It is also not true that we don't have Wikipedia articles on academic papers (see Category:Academic journal articles). GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Keep I have reviewed the sources and reconsidered my position, and decided to vote keep after seeing the term be used outside of On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Thanks! I was unaware of that Category:Academic_journal_articles. (I just counted, excluding the links to editors' user pages and this AfD discussion, there are 35 articles. For comparison, the Category:Lists_of_academic_journals contains 81 LISTS.)

Is there a Notability standard for Academic journal articles (and Magazine articles)? or do they fall under WP:NBOOK? ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you should probably ask at the teahouse. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenBootWizard276: "I cannot find any examples of the term being used outside of the academic paper." Did you look? I find only 8,600 Ghits for the paper, but 67,600 Ghits for the term. See my !vote below. Clearly the term is in common use. It's why I moved the article to its current location in the first place. Skyerise (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see comment below. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" Firstly, the term that originated in this highly influential paper is now widely used in WP:RS discussion of LLMs, as a simple web search will show. Secondly, the paper itself is the subhject of widespread commentary (see search cited). Thirdly, it's not just the paper; the sudden exit under disputed circumstances from Google of two of the paper's authors is an affair in itself. All of the above have been extensively reported and commented on in mainstream media. Putting all these together, this clearly passes WP:GNG. Finally; the last point in the deletion proposal is specious; we do indeed have articles on sufficiently notable academic papers; why, we even have Category:Computer science papers to put this one in. [edited in reponse to comment below from GoldenBootWizard276] — The Anome (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: see comment below. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be notable if there were an article on the academic paper the term originated from, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?", instead of the article on the term itself. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be very happy to have the article moved to that title, which was the original title of the article. I've changed my response above to reflect that. — The Anome (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at current title per WP:COMMONNAME. "Stochastic parrots": 67,600 results, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?": 8,620 results. The term is already (!) in wide use is places that don't refer to the paper. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: The number of search results is not an establishment of notability. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenBootWizard276: I don't consider the notability in question. My observation is intended to establish the WP:COMMONNAME by which to title the article. The use of the term is more widespread than mentions of the article. You've already conceded that the paper is notable (though without changing your !vote). I've demonstrated that the term is independently notable, so you should change your !vote to either 'keep' or 'keep and move'. Skyerise (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: Most of the examples I have found of the term being used outside of academic papers are about the paper itself. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if most of the uses of the term are in machine learning papers, and even if most of those uses cite the article, that doesn't negate the notability of the term. I've included further reading examples in legal, literary, and other fields. Skyerise (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and notable sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nuance - Keep short description of TERM - Delete paper whose only notability comes from authors leaving Google, NOT content of the paper itself as being seen as notable or new in the field, of which the former info is sufficiently covered in the articles on its authors.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 18:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: (Personal attack removed) There are multiple mainstream news sources specifically about the paper. Both the term and the paper are notable. The term derives from the paper, and the paper title can only be redirected to one place, not to three different author pages! The idea that the source in which a term originated can be excised from the article about the term is ridiculous. I can no longer take you seriously. Have a nice day. Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to name which "multiple mainstream sources" you are claiming exist? We currently have two: Maybe you should read their titles: MIT: "We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says." and Verge: "Timnit Gebru’s actual paper may explain why Google ejected her".

You still have no sources which say that this paper is notable for its research. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 19:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: Eleven listed sources (and four further reading examples which use the term outside of machine-learning literature) and you WP:CHERRYPICK two – to make an argument which seems to change each time you comment? Stop wasting our time. Are you still arguing that the paper is more notable than the term, or vice versa? I can't tell. Skyerise (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the TERM is notable (and the origin of the term can of course be used) but that the PAPER is NOT, and therefore THE **FOCUS** OF THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE THE TERM. But the article was created in the name of the PAPER, and you have argued that BOTH are notable INDEPENDENTLY, which is what I have been disagreeing with. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: Great, then there is no problem! The focus of the article is already the term, it's already at the proper title, and this is not redirects for discussion. You've effectively withdrawn your nomination, and you should do so formally below. Skyerise (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much article content about the PAPER; YOU haven't removed that, (and I feel that you'd revert me if I did) and The Anome seems to feel that the PAPER is notable, and should therefore be a big part of the article. We can discuss the notability of the PAPER here also, so that if The Anome starts another article like they started this one (or undoes your move on this one) we won't have to re-do this same discussion. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: This is not the venue for a content discussion (See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). Only the main subject of an article need be notable, and you've conceded that it (the term) is notable. The rest of article content merely has to be supported by reliable sources. Skyerise (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317 and Skyerise: I think both of you should consider toning it down a notch; typing in ALL CAPS on the INTERNET tends to come across as SCREAMING at the other person, and there is basically no situation in which "Are you nuts?" is an acceptable comment to direct at someone else in a deletion discussion :( jp×g 00:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Avatar317: I agree with Skyerise on this except that the term should be a redirect to the paper, not the other way around. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)~~ See comment above GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not quite a WP:SNOWBALL, but I propose this AfD be closed as keep and the title issue be resolved using requested moves if any editor feels strongly enough about changing the title to start one. Skyerise (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue since I added the notability tag has always been that this article is TWO articles; it started as user:The Anome created it as an article about the PAPER, and you HALF-morphed it into a paper about the TERM. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: Again, someone else created the article. I researched it and came to the conclusion (as you seem to have), that the term is more notable and in wider use, and so moved the article and started to work on refocusing the article. However, the paper has to be discussed in the article; it has gotten many academic responses. And even if the paper isn't notable, which I dispute, there is no requirement that a redirected title be notable in and of itself. A redirect is to help people find information on a topic, not an assertion of notability. In any case, if you no longer think the article should be deleted, you should withdraw your nomination. This is not the venue to resolve article content issues, only whether to delete the article. Article content issues are resolved on the article talk page. Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you essentially created a totally new article on a different topic ON TOP OF an already existing article. That's what this deletion discussion is about. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: That's a content issue. Do you still believe the article should be deleted? That's the only outcome you can get here. You don't get to use a deletion discussion to bludgeon other editors on content issues. You discuss it on the article talk page with the other involved editors and come to a WP:CONSENSUS for change. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per GoldenBootWizard276 's suggestion, I asked at the Teahouse here:WP:Teahouse#Is_there_a_Notability_standard_for_academic_journal_articles_(or,_which_notability_standard_should_apply)? so maybe others will come here and give their input.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful. That could be viewed as running afoul of WP:CANVASS, especially since you've conceded that the term is notable and have acknowledged that you are now trying to influence article content decisions. Skyerise (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to interject myself into an ongoing AfD beef, but isn't "influence article content decisions" the primary thing that Wikipedia editors are on this website to do? jp×g 00:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emily M. Bender or Timnit Gebru. There are eleven listed sources, but these do not look to me like WP:SIGCOV that define a separately notable topic from that of the authors individually. Ref 1 seems to be a passing mention: the main quote is "A useful way of thinking about the limitations of data in machine learning then is in terms of a stochastic parrot, a phrase introduced by Bender et al. (2021)" but this is in a section that cites about a dozen papers. I am not sure about ref 2; Towards AI is a Medium-based website that calls itself a "content platform". I don't think that they are prima facie unreliable (I read a few articles and none of them seem to be overtly wrong about anything) but it's not clear whether this counts as SIGCOV. Ref 4 is the paper itself, and I have no idea what ref 5 is (it appears to be a link to a Google Scholar search results page for Bender). 6 is a dictionary definition of "stochastic" unrelated to the subject. 7, 8, and 9 seem borderline (they are mostly about Gebru's firing, and mention the paper in conjunction with this event as it seems to be the major factor). 10 is a YouTube video of one of the authors presenting the paper, which seems to be basically the same thing as refs 3 and 4, and 11 is mostly about GPT-4 and mentions the paper as one of several criticisms. I hate to use the term "refbombing", because it imputes ill intent to the writer of an article, and I don't think that is the case here (the purpose of citations is to reference the content of an article, not to serve as ammunition for 'keep' !votes) but I think that this is a case where the volume of references makes it seem like there is a lot more going on than there actually is. jp×g 00:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe move if really necessary although I think the popularity of the term makes it more notable than the paper title. // Gargaj (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. The consensus appears to be not to delete, but what to do next is up in the air. I am leaning keep because it is becoming a common phrase. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (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 "merge" arguments indicate that the content is not a hoax, not that it is supported by reliable sources that show notability. If there is reliably sourced content on the subject, it can be added to an appropriate article directly without merging the content from this article. RL0919 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas Christian names[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is pure WP:OR. UtherSRG (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, India, and Kerala. UtherSRG (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current form. Agree with the nominator and the views expressed at the previous AFD, that this is unadulterated WP:OR. I cannot even stub the article to a 1-2 sentence sourced summary, because (afaict) nothing pertaining to its supposed subject is currently sourced. And the article has existed for so long that it is hard to find non-circular references on the web, and a quick google-books and jstor search turned up nothing.

@അദ്വൈതൻ: please ping me if you, or anyone else, rewrites the article to make it verifiable and reliable sourced, and I'll be happy to re-evaluate my !vote. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom of the prior AfD resulting in a "soft delete". ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Several comments seem confused, believing the reason this article is at AfD is because it might be a hoax. The reason for this and the last AfD were both regarding the exclusively original research nature of this article. While there are certainly St. Thomas Christian naming customs, we don't seem to have any reliable sources for this topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per preceeding comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or simply redirect to Saint Thomas Christians. These naming conventions are something I've seen personally in an immigrant Indian family. Obviously the article is a mess and could be cited better, but it's not a hoax. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename -- Suggest Naming conventions among St Thomas Christians. I would suggest that this is a legitimate article. The previous AFD had little discussion, so that its outcome tells us little. The AFD should probably have been relisted, rather than closed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It's a bit of a mess right now, but the material is clearly not a hoax. It's more of an essay about a barely notable topic. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, we should not be merging unsourced WP:OR into another article, but no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 04:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburg, New Mexico[edit]

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

Complately unsourced. I prodded the article, but it was deprodded by Kvng, who posted some links on the article's talk page. The text of the first link there seems to a copy of our article (the text here dates from 2006, wheras the Wayback Machine has no record of the United States Ghost Towns page prior to 2021), and none of the other links lead to usable reliable sources. There's no Pittsburg, New Mexico, in the current GNIS database, though The Anomebot2 added coordinates, supposedly drawn from GNIS, for a location that's in a county far distant from the one that the article says this Pittsburg was in. I've not been able to locate any reliable sources, so I'm saying that the article fails WP:GEOLAND. Deor (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Mexico. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Comment- It is on Google Maps. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Comment- I also found this. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are a different place, in Sierra County, not Colfax County. (The location corresponds to the coordinates that TheAnomebot2 erroneously added to the article.) And I just noticed that the second link on the article's talk page is for a Pittsburg in Sierra County, not for this supposed one in Colfax County. Deor (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh oops PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can confirm that Colfax County and Sierra County are at opposite ends of the state. Other than that, inclined to delete if the text can't be cited. Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found it listed on rootsweb. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://sites.rootsweb.com/~nma/GhostTowns/ghost_townsnm.html#:~:text=Chaves-,Pittsburg,Colfax,-Pittsburg PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Could Be Cerillos, New Mexico: this link refers to Cerrillos as "little Pittsburg" PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2023 (

None of the citations you added to the article is a reliable source. And the second one is (as I said in my nomination above) apparently a copy of our article; it's identical in wording, in any event. And Cerrillos isn't in Colfax County, either. Deor (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cerillos is on the old highway (Rt 14) from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. It's very small but definitely not a pile of rubble; I took my kids to a petting zoo there. I'll ask someone about Pittsburg who might know, but New Mexico does empty better than anywhere else, and Colfax County is particularly empty, so I suspect I don't know anyone either who knows whether there was once a Pittsburg there.Elinruby (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) I am[reply]

The person I asked didn't know but sent me a link to the Wikipedia page <g> Elinruby (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for the research. No one has found reliable evidence of WP:EXISTENCE. ~Kvng (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have an alternate solution, we can rewrite the artcle to be the pittsburg in Sierra County New Mexico. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to just let this one die and then start the new one. Having two separate topics in the article history may not be ideal. ~Kvng (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete- based on the reasearch by those of us who have participated in this discussion, we can find no evidence that this place exists. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am told than the following book calls it a farming settlement:

Titre The Place Names of New Mexico Auteur Robert Julyan Édition révisée Éditeur UNM Press, 1996 ISBN 0826316891, 9780826316899 Longueur 385 pages Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the above shows this needs to meet GNG per NGEO, I'm not seeing references that meet GNG and the above did a complete BEFORE. Ping if sources are added to the article. // Timothy :: talk 17:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Point[edit]

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

An article that about a very small area of Edinburgh that fails to meet WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the article to suggest that this is anything other than a routine property development and it does not have the sort of notability required for an article of its own. Dunarc (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is perhaps more that could be said around the whole area regeneration (Granton Waterfront regeneration, etc.) but coverage such as this doesn't demonstrate the specific notability of this particular property development. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a routine property development that doesn't meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2023 (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 leaning towards keep. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Glocksen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sadly, fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Illinois. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Bender, Angela (2009-12-08). "Gina building a life - Happily married, a new album, a new band and atour". Naperville Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "As "American Idol" prepares to kick off another season next month, Naperville residents may grow nostalgic for "their" idol - Gina Glocksen. Fortunately, within the next few months, anyone who misses hearing Glocksen sing will have plenty of opportunities to do so. She is releasing her first album in the coming weeks, touring in a holiday concert coming to the area and also performing in local venues with the Gina Glocksen Band."
2. Alleman, Annie (2010-06-30). "'Idol' Gina Glocksen back for St. Charles appearance". The Beacon News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: " Gina Glocksen can afford to be selective about the gigs she takes, but it's hard for her to turn down requests from kids. ... The Naperville resident is best known as the ninth place finalist from season six of "American Idol." Since then, she's kept her calendar full with concerts and songwriting sessions. She's frustrated her debut CD isn't on the market already, but a series of setbacks has pushed the date back. She doesn't have a record label representing her; she's putting it out herself."
3. Kaczmarczyk, Jeffrey (2012-03-25). "'American Idol's' Gina Glocksen, coming to Grand Rapids, says she's glad she didn't win (video)". MLive Media Group. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Glocksen appeared two seasons on “American Idol.” In the fifth season, she didn’t make it past the top 24. The following season, she finished in ninth place. But it was enough for her to quit her day job as a dental assistant and become a full-time rock and roller. ... Glocksen, who fronts her own band, the Gina Glocksen Band, gets to pick and choose shows such as “Ballroom with a Twist.”"
4. Mitchell, Mike (2007-04-12). "Celebrity status 'weird,' but she's loving it". Naperville Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "A year ago, Gina Glocksen knew about five people in Naperville. On Wednesday, in front of a thousand screaming fans, the "American Idol" finalist was awarded a key to the city at North Central College's Pfeiffer Hall. Mayor George Pradel proclaimed a citywide holiday: Gina Glocksen Day. She called the city her second home. ... But her stay in the western suburb might come to an end soon, Glocksen said. She plans to move to Los Angeles to pursue a singing career after she finishes the "American Idol" Summer Tour, which is slated for the beginning of July."
5. Fawell, Nick (2007-04-12). "Pfeiffer Hall packed for Gina's homecoming". Naperville Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "More than 1,000 of Gina Glocksen's adoring Naperville fans packed North Central College's 1,050-seat auditorium Wednesday as the city threw the booted "American Idol" contestant and Naperville woman a homecoming celebration. ... After Glocksen spoke to the audience and answered questions, Mayor George Pradel presented the Naperville star with a plaque declaring April 11 Gina Glocksen Day in Naperville."
6. Snow, Vickie (2007-08-05). "Southland's star comes home - Gina Glocksen will rock the Allstate Arena Tuesday as part of the American Idols Tour". Daily Southtown. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "About a year ago, Glocksen was auditioning for "American Idol" for the third time and working at a dental office in Worth, stopping at her mom's house frequently for dinner and calling her at least twice a day. Now she spends her days having professionals do her hair and makeup and her nights performing for upwards of 10,000 screaming fans, squeezing in time when she can to text-message family and friends."
7. Gibula, Gary (2016-04-08). "Local 'American Idol' alums reflect on show". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Oswego resident Gina Glocksen, who lived in Naperville and Tinley Park, continues to make music with a self-titled band formed following her ninth-place finish during Season 6. "Since 'Idol' I've been doing the best I can to balance music and family," Glocksen said. "I'm a mom, I have the band and I also sing with a ballroom show." Glocksen is part of 'Ballroom With a Twist,' a national touring troupe that features "American Idol" finalists who sing while professional dancers from "Dancing With the Stars" and "So You Think You Can Dance" jump, jive and jitterbug onstage. ... Glocksen and her husband have one child. The Gina Glocksen Band will be performing April 15 in Woodridge and April 23 in Elgin."
8. Phares, Heather. "Gina Glocksen Biography by Heather Phares". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Like fellow season six contestant Blake Lewis, her taste in music runs from pop stars like Celine Dion to less typical fare like U2, Green Day, and KT Tunstall. A dental assistant by day, Glocksen was also a member of the all-female band Catfight before heading off to American Idol."
9. Leon, Anya (2014-07-16). "Gina Glocksen Welcomes Daughter Daenerys Josephine". People. EBSCOhost 99187438. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Gina Glocksen has her own little idol! The American Idol alum welcomed her first child with husband Joe Ruzicka on Thursday, July 10, PEOPLE confirms. ... It’s been a month full of celebration for Glocksen, who now performs with Ballroom with a Twist — her birthday was on July 4, two days after her official due date."
10. Hooker, Sara (2012-04-19). "Gina Glocksen joins Naperville teens to support KidsMatter". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14.
  The article notes: "Glocksen takes the stage last. Now married and living in Oswego as Gina Glocksen-Ruzicka with her husband and Neuqua Valley teacher Joe Ruzicka, she's currently touring with the show "Ballroom with a Twist""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gina Glocksen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as The Chicago Tribune and The Daily Herald that together shows significant coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to appropriate season of American Idol, which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. The above source eval clearly shows the sources are brief mentions in promo and brief routine news mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. The above eval involved a complete BEFORE so I doubt anything else will be found. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 17:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the above comment that "nothing...meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth". Several of the sources provided above do address the subject "directly and in-depth", and there are many more sources that could likely be found. --Jpcase (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2023 (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 Title 42 expulsion. RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 United States migrant surge[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. We don't know if this surge will continue to be notable long term. Also, it appears there wasn't really a surge, just potential for one see [4] and [5]. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafitfy until WP:RECENTISM subsides and WP:LASTING impact becomes clear. Brandmeister^talk 19:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
draftify: Seems like WP:NOTNEWS territory. It also seems like a very small amount of people to call a surge, when immegration happens of a magnitude many times higher in other countries. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — Clearly, there wasn't a surge, but cities have declared states of emergency. One only needs to look at New York to see this is notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Title 42 expulsion. I don't think this is notable in its own right (WP:EVENTCRIT), but it is an aspect of Title 42's history, and some of the major details in this article could be condensed down to a subsection in that one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Title 42 expulsion, of which the article in question is arguably a WP:POVFORK. We are not here for tabloid-led sensationalism about human migration. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as news reports are reporting that the anticipated surge never happened. --Masem (t) 14:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article creator has a habit of jumping to creating articles for events that are unnecessary and should be covered in a main article and only split when warranted. Reywas92^Talk 22:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Title 42 expulsion per all above, and nom. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 03:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Title 42 expulsion per all above. Von bismarck (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Title 42 expulsions; there's not really enough here to support its own article, but covering the information can be done sufficiently there. --Jayron 32 18:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Title 42 expulsion, as per everyone else, a fork. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electroshock weapon[edit]

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

This is an obvious copy of Taser PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely not a direct copy. There is duplicate information which should be merged one way or another, not just deleted. This article is also much more in depth and longer than that of the taser article. Deletion is not the solution for this issue, should be a merging proposal. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how do you propose a merge??? PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulGamerBoy360 Read this here WP:MERGEPROP. I feel this one would need a discussion before merging. Paulpat99 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tasers aren't the only kind of Electroshock Weapon. The articles also aren't copies; while they share a lot in common, and could share a lot of information, Taser is specific while Electroshock Weapon is broad. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin D lamp[edit]

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

This seems to be wholly OR and somewhat promotional. It doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic value as currently presented. Bensci54 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no sources and to provide any meaningful content would need to be nuked. UV-B lamps pretty much covers all of it anyway.

PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UVB lamps are lamps that emit wavelength of 280-320 nanometer. Until few years ago there were no UVB LED lamps. The only lamps in the market were fluorescent uvb lamps. They were limited by the phosphore inside the glass. There is no phosphore that can emit 297 nanometer, that is the most suitable for vitamin D3.

Lately LED lamps were developed, and with the new technology it is possible to reach any wavenegth. Experimenting with them found that they are much better than the fluresncent UVB lamps. The most known one is the fluorscent lamp of sperti. It was found that the upper part of the UVB, 310-320 nanometer, reduces the vitamin D3. Thus a full spectrum 280-320nm UVB lamp is not suitable for Vitamin D increase.

You can read this articles: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Weighted-irradiance-for-previtamin-D-3-formation-associated-with-the-action-spectra-shown_fig5_303501166 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11362-2

If you want it is possible to change the name in wikipedia to LED vitamin D lamp.

This is in order to educate that the fluoresent UVB lamps are simply not suitable for vitamin D3. Just like if you tune the FM radio to the wrong frequency. Gilteva (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Unsourced material, possible promo based on one of the links and one of the images. I invite User:Gilteva to contribute once in related articles such as or sections such as UV-B lamps#Increasing vitamin D3 once he or she can learn contributing to Wikipedia as per the policies. BurgeoningContracting 18:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UVB lamps are lamps that emit wavelength of 280-320 nanometer. Until few years ago there were no UVB LED lamps. The only lamps in the market were fluorescent uvb lamps. They were limited by the phosphore inside the glass. There is no phosphore that can emit 297 nanometer, that is the most suitable for vitamin D3.

Lately LED lamps were developed, and with the new technology it is possible to reach any wavenegth. Experimenting with them found that they are much better than the fluresncent UVB lamps. The most known one is the fluorscent lamp of sperti. It was found that the upper part of the UVB, 310-320 nanometer, reduces the vitamin D3. Thus a full spectrum 280-320nm UVB lamp is not suitable for Vitamin D increase.

You can read this articles: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Weighted-irradiance-for-previtamin-D-3-formation-associated-with-the-action-spectra-shown_fig5_303501166 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11362-2

If you want it is possible to change the name in wikipedia to LED vitamin D lamp.

This is in order to educate that the fluoresent UVB lamps are simply not suitable for vitamin D3. Just like if you tune the FM radio to the wrong frequency. Gilteva (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can read this articles:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Weighted-irradiance-for-previtamin-D-3-formation-associated-with-the-action-spectra-shown_fig5_303501166 Gilteva (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Products, and Medicine. Skynxnex (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthless spam. WP:TNT applies. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Egregious, poorly written WP:PROMO --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly-written piece of spam masquerading as an essay. In 2023, everyone knows that we are not a web host. That LED lamps used to facilitated Vitamin D production are "newly developed", "lately", and didn't exist "a few years ago" is a combination of neologism, promotion, and original research. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2023 (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. WP:HEY, it was improved with better sourcing. RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago CRED[edit]

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

Local organisation doing some community work in a US city since 2016. Article is based on five sources – two deprecated or questionable sites (mentioned in a YouTube video and on World Socialist Web Site as someone's affiliation), a podcast, an interview of the founder in local TV station, and the organisation's own website. All dated to 2023. Yep.

It is obvious that the article subject falls very far from long-lasting, significant, in-depth coverage required for WP:NCORP and for a global encyclopaedia in general.

Additionally, the article's draft, in an almost identical form (less a couple of weasel buzzwords) was already (rightly) removed from mainspace by Mooonswimmer|.[6] The creator went against that and recreated the article in mainspace. However, given the lack of notability, draftifying may be pointless. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Coverage of this subject includes: (1) a specific profile on The Daily Show, (2) a profile by Slate, (3) coverage in The Economist. The idea that those three sources don't amount to SIGCOV is frankly difficult to reconcile.

It was only after those sources were added and the article redrafted that this was re-added to mainspace.

Gosh, kashmīrī , I hope this is a good faith AfD nom and not made in response to my comment on this RfA. It would be saddening if that were the case. I will take it for now that you are acting in good faith. Jack4576 (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your weird arguments in that AfD, where you directly questioned SIGCOV and other Wikipedia policies, made me take a look at your recent edits – and indeed, it seems that you fail to understand what notability is all about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh would you look at that, with one Google search I've identified SIGCOV from the Washington Post.

It would be preferable to have AfD editors that understand policy well enough to perform a WP:BEFORE, prior to nom. Its hard to maintain the presumption that you are acting in good faith, if you're not going to bother doing a basic Google prior to an AfD.

On the basis of the WAPO coverage are you willing to withdraw this AfD? Its more than a little sad that this entry for a meaningful local NGO has been caught up in your pettiness. Jack4576 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come across this in your WP:BEFORE search ? Jack4576 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Christian Science Monitor Jack4576 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question The Slate source appears to be an interview with the organization's leader that doesn't really discuss the organization? The Daily Show I can't seem to get to -- fixed deadlinks, tried Wayback, no joy -- but it also looks like an interview with the org leader? The World Socialist and Opera sources appear to be bare mentions? I'm not sure I'm seeing sigcov. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Show interview was an interview with both founders about the org, "on how Chicago CRED is connecting at-risk young men with job training, counseling, and paychecks" (link). Twitter links aren't favoured sources but I think this is good enough to make the point here. I'll add it to the article.

Plus the WAPO coverage that I have just added. Jack4576 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage from the Obama Foundation. Now added. Jack4576 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general we don't consider interviews to count as independent discussion. What we need to see are three instances of sigcov in RS that are independent. Don't get me wrong, this is a great organization, but the sources provided aren't supporting notability. Adding more sources that don't support a claim to notability isn't the answer, what we need to know is which three are sig cov+RS+independent, ideally two of which are from media outside the local area? Valereee (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think SIGCOV is met with the sources already provided, I think that sets the bar way too high.

Where in SIGCOV is it required that there be three sources that are all are sig cov+RS+independent.

The requirements for (1) reliable sources, and (2) significant coverage are separate requirements.

Feel free to disagree in the application of policy, but that is not my interpretation of the wording of GNG. The only other thing I have to say is that deletion of this article would leave the encyclopedia the worse for it. Jack4576 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we have specific attention on this org from the Washington Post, The Obama Foundation, The Daily Show; plus numerous local sources, and SIGCOV is still in question? Really?

What are we waiting for, a front page article from the NYT? Good grief. Jack4576 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for actual articles rather than interviews or bare mentions. We require multiple that are all sig cov+RS+independent; some editors are willing to accept two very good ones. In order to make a subject bulletproof, I try to find three before moving to article space. For the policy see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Valereee (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your engagement in good faith and thank you sincerely for your contributions to this thread. I've encountered this issue re: 'interviews' before, and honestly I don't understand the hang-up over it.

Surely if the interviewer is of a sufficiently high-profile that ought go some way to establishing that the subject has been significantly covered. I'd understand if it was a bare interview without any depth in a trade magazine; but these are of a sufficiently high profile that an exception to the rule ought to be made.

Anyway, I appreciate that this may be more worthwhile a discussion on the relevant policy page than here. Thanks again. Jack4576 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found an in-depth profile from the Christian Science Monitor. Surely this is conclusive of SIGCOV. Jack4576 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source. Jack4576 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would consider both the CSM and the Giffords sources to be sigcov+RS+independent. Both are outside local media, and I'll take it as given this has been covered in Chicago. Keep. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amended sourcing, notability criteria for organisations have clearly been met. Schwede 66 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY improvements. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page was improved and sourced added or found. could be saved now. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2023 (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 Effects of climate change. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of Climate Change[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY. I would have draftified it, but that has been done once already. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @T.p.amalfitano, Brianda (Wiki Ed) as this is a WikiEd article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or draftify/userfy if the creator wishes. Definitely not suitable for mainspace however. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. will need rewriting so it complies with WP:NOTESSAY. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've run into students doing this two or three dozen times over the past three weeks. They move pages all around to different namespaces, they don't remove user sandbox tags, they frequently don't retitle the pages to remove their usernames, it's just a mess. I wish we could get the message across that these student projects are almost always unsuitable for main space. About 5% of those I see are great and would meet AFC approval but I just moved a 3 paragraph article on the Boston Celtics that was still marked as a sandbox. The idea that this student essay would replace our current article on the Celtics is beyond misguided. Sorry, but there have been a flurry of these attempts lately and I guess I'm losing my patience especially when they are just moved back to main space after being moved to User or Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Effects of climate change. Seem identical in topic and coverage. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Effects of climate change as a duplicate article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Effects of climate change as per above posts. I haven't compared the articles in detail, but the existing Good Article nominee is much more complete. If there is any content in the subject article that is not in the target article, it can be added by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Liz - Are you !voting? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to comment, rather than vote, in case it turns out that I need to close this discussion. I'm neutral on what happens to this page, I was just commenting on the general situation we are facing at the end of the school term. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. We do have some surprising gaps in existing coverage, but that is not one of them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per above Andre🚐 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Effects of climate change per above. // Timothy :: talk 17:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 by Fastily. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central University of Gujarat people[edit]

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

Should be deleted due to author’s request by some kind of user messing around. Page also entirely empty. Was originally created by this guy --TheAlabamian27 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 12 May 2023 (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 numbered comets#270P. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P/1997 C1[edit]

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

The only coverage is from databases and the announcements about the discoveries[7], the orbital elements revisions [8][9] and the assosiation with a latter apparition [10] and thus the comet was numbered (it is 270P/Gehrels). They may sound enough, but this is just routine coverage for a numbered comet, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed (eg. it doesn't have a dedicated page in Kronk's cometography). 270P/Gehrels is currently a redirect to List of numbered comets#270P and so this could become a redirect to that page too, with a note that a more appropriate page name exists (with template ((R avoided double redirect))). C messier (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Only found a bunch of data about the subject, does not seem to be notable. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of numbered comets#270P as an ((R avoided double redirect)): coverage is WP:ROUTINE and there are not enough sources to establish notability per WP:NASTCRIT. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. // Timothy :: talk 04:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Sherman (videographer)[edit]

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

Marked for puffrey and questionable notability for almost two years without any improvement. All the cited sources range from questionable to outright unreliable (detailed source analysis down below). No other significant coverage of the subject can be found, probably fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article cited a lot of sources, but all of them (except two) can be classified into the following categories:

Promotional: 1 is just a collection of the subject's quotes; 6 does not sound too objective in the overview of the subject's life so far; and 25 literally included a link to the merchandise of the subject's documentary;
Trivial Mentions: 11 of the total 29 sources are focus on the subject's products or projects instead of himself, and only mentioned or quoted him for once or twice. They are: 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22 and 23;
No Mentions: 6 of the total 29 sources made no mentions of the subject. They are: 3, 8, 11, 12, 27 and 28;
Not Sigcov/Unreliable: 5 is an interview, therefore primary source; 7 has a clip of supposedly the youth of the subject starting in 5:28, but with nothing to identify which of the child shown was the subject; 16 is literally a link to merchandise store; and 29 is a playlist of videos made by the subject;
Defunct: Sites that weren't even archived, like 18, 20 and 24;

There are only two citations worth discussing: 17, where the subject's work was shown winning the Best Feature Documentary of Film Fest Philadelphia 19 Audience Awards, an award whose notability I can't be sure of; and 26, where a news agency have a profolio of the subject as an employee. Even then, neither of the two sources could support the mass amount of content in the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the source analysis above. I can't find any hits for this person, rather common name and Gsearch picks up anyone with this last name. This was likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:PROMO and not enough WP:SIGCOV for it to be an article. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:51, 12 May 2023 (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 Chad international footballers. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hisseine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Chad international footballers as an WP:ATD; found no WP:SIGCOV in a before, just database entries and rsssf.org mentions (which don't count per WP:SPORTBASIC 5) and a few hits for track athlete Ali Hissein Mahamat. ミラP@Miraclepine 12:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers as an WP:ATD. BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 04:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paappa Yawson[edit]

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

Non-notable musician/singer. I can't find sourcing and being nominated for an ward with dubious notability doesn't help, not meeting GNG or MUSIC Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the curator of the page, I have thoroughly read through Wikipedia:Notability (music) and the article passes criterium 8 as a four-time nominee of a notable award scheme, Ghana Music Awards USA. The person also has publications on GhanaWeb, ModernGhana, Ameyaw Debrah, TV3 Ghana and News Ghana, a simple Google search proves it here.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ghana, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Meets WP:MUSICBIO since he has award nomination in his own country, which also means he probably had radio airplay and chart ranking songs.Pershkoviski (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:RS. -Xclusivzik (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The one song and extended play he has released has not been discussed in reliable sources. He has received multiple nominations for an award whose notability is questionable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No commentary since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. It's a bit WP:TOOSOON as well. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. If the award nominations are notable, their should be SIGCOV about the subject surrounding their nomination, but I see none, just routine annoucements in entertaimnet news. Ping me if someone adds new SIGCOV refs to the article. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2022 Ohio gubernatorial election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Blystone[edit]

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

This is a candidate who fails GNG whose entire page is an (aggressively documented) recounting of his campaign finance violation. He is of no notability. Mpen320 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ohio. --Mpen320 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ *Redirect ~~has received coverage in 3 Ohio newspapers (mostly for his Fundgate), but for me that's enough to satisfy GNG.~~Based on Curbon7's analysis. ArcAngel (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Local newspapers are always going to cover everyone who is running for local elections, because it's literally their duty. This coverage, as such, is routine and typical. The sources are also incredibly superficial: only one can really be considered WP:SIGCOV, and even then it's clear this is just a voters' guide. Redirecting to 2022 Ohio gubernatorial election seems like a good [{WP:ATD]]. Curbon7 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Ohio gubernatorial election per rationale of Curbon7. Sal2100 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2023 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harris (film critic)[edit]

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

Host of a non-notable radio show, lecturer that fails WP:NACADEMIC, and actor in non-notable roles. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and Australia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only indepth coverage is the first gnews hit, other than that he fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was unable to find anything about him that would pass WP:SIGCOV. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the new source it passes WP:GNG. I will admit it was hard to find sources on this guy, he had the perfect storm of problems, a common name and lots of material he wrote as a film critic. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was easily able to find SIGCOV including specific coverage of his retirement from Sydney Morning herald. Linked in article.

Please WP:BEFORE more thoroughly before advocating for deletions. Jack4576 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been hard to find sources with Newspapers.com being downjust wondering how did you find that article? I got swamped with a bunch of noise with other Paul Harris's and what I could find about him was just some of his reviews. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My search into Google read: ["Paul Harris" Melbourne] it was the 8th link on the first page Jack4576 (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I feel real silly thanks for letting me know. As I said when I changed my vote I think this guy is a strange edge case but still passes WP:GNG. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2023 (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 Singularity (DeSmedt novel). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill DeSmedt[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV or any indication that he passes WP:NCREATIVE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has an entry in SFE [11] which I've now added to the article. Weak, b/c it's just one source, and SFE seems very inclusive towards English-speaking authors (whereas, for example, most major Polish sf authors don't even get a page... but that's not relevant to the argument here, forgive me for venting about systemic bias). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or refocus to be about his book Singularity per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "DeSmedt, Bill". The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. 2022-09-12. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The entry notes: "US computer programmer and author, whose Near Future Archon Sequence, comprising Singularity (2004) and Dualism (2014), dramatizes the Jackson-Ryan Hypothesis that the 1908 Tunguska explosion in Siberia was caused by a microscopic Black Hole, which remains at the Earth's core and threatens the End of the World."
2. Singularity book reviews:
  1. Shawl, Nisi (2004-11-28). "The nerd gets the secret agent in taut science-fiction thriller". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
    The review notes: ""Singularity" is Bill DeSmedt's first novel. It's also Seattle publisher Per Aspera's first book. By basing their infant reputation on the debut of this unknown Pennsylvania author, this new local press has made a big gamble — perhaps a smart one. DeSmedt's clear descriptions of everything from the core of a typical star to the sinister device an assassin uses to mimic a wolf's bite make it easy to follow his swiftly swooping story line."
  2. Folsom, Robert (2004-12-05). "Frontiers of the mind - Three first novels should get these writers off to a good start". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
    The review notes: "For his first effort, Bill DeSmedt chose as his topic the Tunguska event of 1908, when a meteorite was believed to have smashed into the Siberian wilderness, leveling trees for miles. DeSmedt has his own explanation: a submicroscopic black hole. ... The dialogue would be another matter; it's very scientific. But De-Smedt has managed a neat trick: Conversations are lively even though they're peppered with accurate physicist's jargon. The thriller aspect of the book helps."
  3. Hopper, Jim (2004-12-12). "There's blood on the sand and on the asteroids as well". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
    The review notes: "Bill DeSmedt has a stylish technothriller, "Singularity" (Per Aspera, 502 pages, $25.95) -- the publisher's first hardcover and the author's first novel, not that it seems so. The SF portion starts off with the Tunguska Event, the 1908 phenomenon in Siberia that made a big noise and flattened a lot of trees, radially. Something ... strange ... happened. DeSmedt makes a case for a primordial black hole, which is still orbiting inside the Earth. Verifying the conjecture is an early part of the story. What a villain could do with such a thing, and why, is the thriller part."
  4. McKellar, Danica (2008-08-24). "In My Library - Danica McKellar". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
    The review notes: "Singularity by Bill DeSmedt. It's my favorite science fiction thriller. It's got everything - great characters, suspense, action, romance, and you just might learn something about black holes along the way. I stayed up till 3 a.m. every night for a week reading it, and it left me wanting more!"
  5. Olsen, Lisa (2007-07-18). "Disaster stories offer guilt-free thrills". The Fayetteville Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
    The review notes: "Singularity also revolves around the Tunguska event, only this time it was not a meteor or a experiment gone wrong that caused the disaster, but the appearance of a microscopic black hole. Worse, the black hole is still trapped in the Earth's crust, and conspirators are working to capture it to use it for their own ends. Marianna Bonaventure, a U.S. agent working to track down weapons of mass destruction, and Jonathan Knox, a brilliant analyst, must team up to save the world. A science fiction thriller, Singularity will appeal to readers who enjoy Michael Crichton."
  6. Alden, John R. (2004-11-07). "Black hole hitting Earth grabs readers of thriller". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
    The review notes: "Singularity by Bill DeSmedt (Per Aspera Press, $25.95) is a slam-bang first novel where the science is as important as the fiction. ... "Singularity" takes this bizarre possibility, adds a cast of exotic characters, whips in a blitzkrieg plot and bakes it all into a hugely entertaining near-future thriller. James Bond would have loved to star in a story such as this."
  7. Hartley, Lara (2006-09-08). "New adventures in podcasting land". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: " "Singularity" by Bill DeSmedt "What if the cataclysmic Tunguska explosion of 1908 was caused, not by a meteor or a comet, but by a microscopic black hole?"... The book has received awards in- cluding: Winner of the Gold Medal for Science Fiction in Foreword Magazine's Book of the Year Awards. Winner of the Independent Publishers Association's Ippy prize for Best Fantasy/Science Fiction novel of 2004."
  8. Hoffert, Barbara; Burns, Ann (2005-03-15). "Winter Wonders, Spring Hopefuls". Library Journal. Vol. 130, no. 5. EBSCOhost 16488600.
    The review notes: "Another first book from a new press, this sf thriller makes the way-out assumption that a 1908 explosion in Siberia called the Tunguska Event resulted from Earth's very close encounter with a tiny black hole. The book grabbed the #5 position on Barnes & Noble's top ten list in sf and fantasy and the #7 position on Mysterious Galaxy's best sellers list."
  9. "Singularity (book)". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 251, no. 43. 2004-10-25. EBSCOhost 14829605. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
    The review notes: "DeSmedt's debut SF thriller, a brisk Michael Crichton clone, vividly depicts the Tunguska event that leveled a big patch of Siberia in 1908, then shifts to the near-future, where warrior woman Marianna Bonaventure is working for CROM (Critical Resources Oversight Mandate), the U.S. Department of Energy's branch for dealing with loose WMD talent. ... The sexual chemistry between Marianna and Jonathan adds spice. Exotic hardware, lifestyles of the rich and notorious, double- and triple-crosses and a slightly rushed and facile conclusion all make a respectable if not outstanding first effort."
  10. "Singularity (book)". The New York Review of Books. Vol. 51, no. 18. 2004-11-18. p. 53. EBSCOhost 15063458.
Cunard (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I acknowledge the list of reviews above for the book... so looking for focused attention on whether the BLP should exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With only SFE as a suitable source, I don't really see a reason to keep the article (at that point, might as well just redirect the page to his entry in SFE). All the other links listed above are either promotional or trivial mentions. The book Singularity might deserve an article, but the author does not appear to be notable. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I oppose deletion. Most of the Wikipedia article is about his work on the book Singularity (as are the sources), so this article should be merged to Singularity (DeSmedt novel) (which was blanked and redirected to Bill DeSmedt in 2019) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored Singularity (DeSmedt novel) using the sources I listed here. Cunard (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Singularity (DeSmedt novel): Author fails GNG and should be redirected to his notable novel per WP:ATD-R. There is potential of author reaching GNG in future. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Singularity (DeSmedt novel)#About the Author after Delete. The source eval above shows that the subject of the article does not have sourcing for notability independent of the novel (WP:NOTINHERITED). WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). There is substantial unsourced BLP content in the article so it should be deleted before redirect. // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's older revisions contained more sources such as this article from SciFiDimensions that verifies the article's content. Material in Bill DeSmedt that is supported by sources like SciFiDimensions can be merged to Singularity (DeSmedt novel), so I oppose deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2023 (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. Draftification can be requested at WP:REFUND if someone plans to work on this. ✗plicit 13:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology of myopia[edit]

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

Though this topic may be notable, this page as it currently exists is just a "stat dump" of rates of myopia per different case studies. As an example, in the USA section, there is 7 separate studies of myopia listed (1970s, TX, Socal, La Puente, American Samoa, Chicago, Alaska) , with nothing in particular connecting them.

Even if the topic is found to be notable, this article should be WP:TNTed and a more focused article created. Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify would be the preferred option if someone could commit to fix the WP:NOTSTATS issue or turn it into a list; it is clearly notable and there are many sources to use. Otherwise, Delete is the best option, it really is a dump of statistics with no meaning. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the nature of epidemiology ("the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in a defined population"), any such article will be stats-heavy. Turning such article-body-text into one or more tables might help make the remainder more easily readable. Just a suggestion. – .Raven ^.talk 11:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Or at the very least draftify. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:21, 18 May 2023 (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. Notability needs to be established via reliable sources. Assuming that sources should exist does not show notability. Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parassala Pachan Payyannur Paramu[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd with "Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE". PROD contested with a single additional source. Still seems to fail NFILM and GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Kerala. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have a significant review in English so I think that we should be assuming that sufficient additional coverage exists in the Malayalam language unless someone can demonstrate that isn't the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there exists a review from a reliable source 23 years after it was released indicating it would surely have received press and reviews when it was released. It is extremely hard to source reviews for old Malayalam movies that were made before internet became common in the country, and considering the star cast it would have received more than 2 reviews had it released now. Jupitus Smart 13:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article from 2014-2021, and no sources could be found in that time or until now. WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST but it should not be up to someone to show that sources do not exist! As I mentioned at the RfU before it was restored, the only significant source we have, the review, could have been more than a basic plot narration. Delete if this is the best we can do with this article. Jay 💬 17:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is for those seeking to retain content to provide verification/sources; assuming they exist isn't what we do here. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2023 (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles with hidden headlamps[edit]

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

Not a defining characteristic, just a list of WP:TRIVIA (often not even mentioned at the vehicle article itself, and otherwise usually just in passing, not as a major element), fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable topic for a list given the numerous articles listing cars with hidden headlights that show up with a Google search:

Keep: Notable list topic, significant coverage of cars with hidden headlights specifically because of their inclusion of said feature. (usually under the name "pop-up headlights). WP:LISTPURP: Information: Is a structured list, chronological useful for showing the development, rise, and decline of hidden headlamps. Alphabetical useful for showing the prevalence of the feature by certain brands. IceBergYYC (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appear to be a number of references on the page, but these do not appear to cover the totality of the items in the list. Therefore the contents are not WP:VERIFIABLE. Furthermore there may be variations in the vehicle models available in different countries so in order for the page to be accurate there would need to be a high level of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. JMWt (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have referenced approximately 65 vehicles as of now. Working on the rest to ensure WP:VERIFIABLE. IceBergYYC (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Well there seem like a lot more than 65 vehicles left. Given the effort you are spending to extract the information, this seems to confirm WP:SYNTH - as there will necessarily be many references used. JMWt (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what context does using individual sources stating or showing that a car has hidden headlamps classify as WP:SYNTH. I am simply passionate about this topic, and willing to expend effort to ensure the information is clear and available. I was under the impression that given 95% of these cars have wikipedia pages, the vast majority of which include reference to their hidden headlamps, that the only ones requiring additional citations for verifiability were those cars without wiki pages. IceBergYYC (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (1) Pop-up headlights are clearly a thing; people write about them. And therefore it's good that we have an article about them; (2) that article can clearly contain a list of cars with pop-up headlights, and if that list gets too big, it makes sense to bud it off into a separate list article, which this is; but (3) there's extra weight for having an article like this from the very fact that an awful lot of magazines have written exactly such lists, suggesting the whole concept of a list of cars with pop-up headlights is notable and expected, in a sense that cars-with-radiator-grills-turned-down-at-the-corners wouldn't be. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of OR/SYNTH on this, because summarising information from multiple sources is what we do; if we decide that combining multiple sources is synthesis, we'll end up in the absurd situation that we couldn't put a 16th C composer in a list of 16th C composers based on the verifiable fact that he composed in the 16th C, we'd have to wait until someone else published a list that included him. SYNTH would be taking an article that says hidden-headlights are sexy, and a list of cars with hidden-headlights, and creating a List of sexy cars. I'm not even going to test if that's a red-link. Elemimele (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well because it is a long list of information that is only sourced as far as an individual editor can be bothered.

Take for example if someone wants to write a page called List of authors called Thomas. Clearly one can find sources that refer to people called Thomas. One might be able to find a listicle of "10 famous authors called Thomas". It's possible that there's even an academic paper on The Thomases - if they happen to be a particularly famous family of authors or something.

In my view it requires synthesis to get from many tens or even hundreds of sources (some of which, in my example, might just be the title of books by someone called Thomas) to get to a list. To me it is no justification to point to low quality sources talking about authors called Thomas to show that the topic is notable.

That's my reasoning. JMWt (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:SYNTH is, SYNTH is the inclusion of novel information derived from cross referencing or making inferences based on sources. If you mean to argue failure to meet WP:NLIST "because it takes multiple sources" that would also be a mis-categorization based on the fact that there are a dozen+ references in the article acting as small compendiums of different categories of vehicles with hidden headlamps, therefore showing the notability of a list of vehicles hidden headlamps. IceBergYYC (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear, from the references, that any discuss the set from independent & reliable sources (WP:NLIST). Those that do discuss multiple at a time are just listicles, so not great sourcing. SWinxy (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new references [1] and [2] in the article, discussing the concept of pop-up headlights as a whole group, from an independant, reliable source. (Road and Track, one of the largest car publications. Car and Driver, the other largest.) IceBergYYC (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't go in that deep. Road and Track isn't even listing the headlights; they're just pointing to a YouTube video and not going as far. Lots of online publications in the 2010s made 'articles' that were just "hey look at this video" and added little to nothing on top. Car and Driver is more of a surface-level history overview, consisting of two paragraphs. SWinxy (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, mass market journalism is dead, a shell of it's imagined former self. That doesn't mean major, independant publications dont believe the concept of vehicles with hidden headlights is inherently notable enough to publish. IceBergYYC (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Inclined to support retention of this article as more convinced by the 'keep' arguments put forward by Elemimele and IceBergYYC. Here's another source to support the claim that the grouping is valid https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/51-great-cars-with-pop-up-lights/ss-AA13JG8V.

Not following the OR/SYNTH rationale. Haven't seen any rule that limits the number of sources used to verify inclusion in list articles. SYNTH relates to importing a conclusion not stated in the facts. If a vehicle can be verified to have pop-up headlights in a reliable source then it can be included in this list.

The list is too long for the Hidden headlamp article but remains within the bounds of acceptable length unlike some lists that are deleted where the criteria for inclusion are too broad.

It's a weak keep owing to the quality of sourcing for notability purposes i.e. listicles.

If the article's kept I'm looking forward to one being written on List of vehicles with vinyl roofs. Rupples (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There has to be a limit. hidden headlamps is not defining characteristic of a car like its form, its an individual design element, like the shape of the taillights. This list fails NLIST outside of trivia lists and coverage, there is coverage of cars with hidden headlamps, but nothing else. // Timothy :: talk 04:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References like [23] (https://heacockclassic.com/articles/pop-up-headlights-seventy-years-of-hidden-history/) are sources demonstrating the inherent notability of such a list; showcasing and explaining the different "eras" of hidden headlamps without being a "trivia" list. IceBergYYC (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1-3, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying delete citing criteria of an essay you wrote? IceBergYYC (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: perhaps a niche topic, but the sources cited make clear that this is a meaningful categorisation used by publications about cars, given that so many of them explicitly group or distinguish between different models on that basis. We need to follow the sources, not make our own judgements about what are or aren't "important" aspects of design. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all editors involved. I agreed with them. CastJared (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rukmini Devi Public School[edit]

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Qualifies speedy deletion under WP:A7. User4edits (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Educational institutions are excluded from A7. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and my own long-standing standards. Absolutely run-of-the-mill school. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alila Hotels and Resorts[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources and coverage are promotional, trivial, routine announcements, interviews with company officers, and one passing mention. Fails ORGCRITE, CORPDEPTH, and GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:NOTADVERT. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Asia. Steve Quinn (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Oman, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Selection of two sources:
  1. Mather, Victoria (2011-11-19). "Followers in Aman's Footsteps: Where Amanresorts leads, others imitate. But how successfully? Victoria Mather scrutinizses some copycat rivals". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Alila Villas. Where? Cambodia, India, and indonesia, with more openings to come, in China and the Middle East. What's the story: Private-pool villas, launched in Jakarta in 2000, the brand sprang to international consciousness when Alila Uluwatu opened in Bali in 2009, Alila, which is Sanskrit (thank you, Aman) for "surprise", was immediately hailed as heir to Aman: dramatic architecture, high aspirations about seamless service, and an apparent mission to spoil guests to death. Mark Edleson, US banker turned hotelier and the man behind Mandara spas, is the guiding light. The good: Super-eco, with a real determination to create a sense of place. Resorts are built with local materials and labour; only local staff are employed. Locally sourced, carbon-neutral foods are used in preference to imported. Service thinking, not by-the-manual. Some of the architecture is breathtaking. particularly the bird's-nest pavilion suspended above the sea in Bali. The Bad: Can deluxe privacy be too isolating? ... The aim is modernist and understated, making Aman's temple-inspired resorts look fussy and the Asian style imposed on its Villa Milocer in Montenegro seem inappropriate."
  2. Keays, Melina (2022-10-11). "Element of surprise: a canny design approach at Alila Hotels and Resorts". Wallpaper. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The article notes: "When Mark Edelson, Frederic Simon and Franky Tjahyadikarta and their partners launched Alila resorts back in 2001, they couldn’t have guessed that 17 years later, the brand would become known not just for its quiet parsing of restrained luxury, but also a byword for responsible, sustainable tourism. But then again, when the name of your brand is Sanskrit for ‘surprise’, the unexpected becomes par for the course. Most of Alila’s resorts are based in Asia – beginning with the originals in Indonesia and sweeping up sprawling bucolic estates in China – though, in recent years, it has gained footholds in the Middle East and America. But regardless of the destination, each resort features an absorbing mix of contemporary architecture accented with local flourishes, history, dramatic landscapes, and culture. It is a DNA that has served Alila well. Customisation to local nuances means that it avoids the monotonously repetitive and unadventurous design that can bedevil small boutique properties."
2. Additional sources:
  1. Lee, Siew Hua (2015-10-12). "Alila Resort co-founder inspired by his encounters with locals in a Perak kampung decades ago". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The article notes: "In essence, Alila combines innovative design and luxury in exquisite locations with natural beauty and cultural significance. Guests enjoy personalised hospitality in these stylish places - plus the experiences and privacy he mentions. ... The locations are largely within Asia. There is an Omani resort and the less-explored Gulf has been a zone of interest. North America and Europe will be next. ... Like Aman, Alila is collecting accolades. It is a long list that includes praise for the clifftop infinity pool and dinner at the Warung in Alila Villas Uluwatu, Bali; green credentials at Alila Villas Soori, also in Bali; and holistic approach and family fun at Alila Diwa Goa - with awards from CNN, TripAdvisor, Mr and Mrs Smith, Conde Nast, EarthCheck and more."
  2. Mowbray, Nicole (2012-05-11). "Bali Explored". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The article notes: "Thankfully, there is an alternative. Alila is a small, independently owned hotel company eager to get visitors off the mass-tourist trail. The word alila means ‘surprise’ in Sanskrit and the company’s philosophy is to show guests local culture while cosseting them in spectacularly luxurious surroundings. Each hotel has its own menu of ‘journeys’ through which local guides will show you authentic Balinese culture. Alila Villas in Uluwatu, on the island’s southern tip, is perched high above the Indian Ocean on a limestone plateau. The hotel’s architects, the Singaporean company WOHA, have won shelf-loads of awards for the three-year-old property and it’s easy to see why."
  3. "Alila Jabal Akhdar". Michelin Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The review notes: "Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: Alila is Sanskrit for “surprise.” And it’s a surprise, indeed, to find one of the Alila group’s impeccably stylish luxury boutique hotels in so remote a corner of the Middle East — Oman’s Al Hajar mountain range, to be exact. It requires some effort to get to Alila Jabal Akhdar, and that’s exactly the appeal. This is not just a boutique hotel with serious design chops: it’s an oasis, secluded and self-contained, with a spectacular spa and an infinity pool that’s perfectly placed for drinking in views of the stark landscape."
  4. Inglis, Kim (2012). Asian Style Hotels: Bali, Java, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand. Singapore: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-0907-0. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "When Alila Jakarta opened in 2001, it was a first for the capital. Most Indonesians equate luxury with opulence and international brands, so the understated style of the hotel came as a surprise. Where were the artworks, the huge floral arrangements, the fuss, the clutter? Why didn't the GM wear a suit and tie? Why was the Buzz restaurant called a cafe? Where was the banqueting hall? It took them a while to get used to the new concept of geometry, space and simplicity-but over time, Jakartans began to see its merits, and pragmatically took to its low-key vibe."
  5. Tantri, Gusti Ayu Diah; Ernawati, Ni Made; Astuti, Ni Nyoman Sri (2020). "Public Relations Strategy in Strengthening Brand Image at Alila Villas Uluwatu Bali". Journal of Applied Sciences in Travel and Hospitality. 3 (2): 97–106. doi:10.31940/jasth.v3i2.1914. ISSN 2622-8319. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The article notes: "Alila recently being acquired by Hyatt Hotels Corporation in 2018, the resort should blend the image that also representing Hyatt Brand. Alila Villas Uluwatu has been building a brand image as a unique and sustainable resort for high-end travelers with the tagline "Surprisingly Different". "
  6. Kinsman, Juliet. "Alila Villas Uluwatu: The striking latticework rectangles of this all-villa resort, set high on a cliff, has become an icon for contemporary Bali". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The article notes: "Alila is a fast-growing chain, and this hotel shows it at its best. We loved the award-winning architecture and staggering sea views, as well as the impressive filtration and bottling system that keep the property plastic-free. ... Alila is never a slouch in the spa department, and here, just as you might expect from a hotel brand where the name translates from Sanskrit into “surprise," the property gives eons-old Asian wellness techniques a fresh spin. There's a spa with a steam room and hammam."
  7. "Alila Napa Valley". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The review notes: "The property feels more like an estate than a hotel. There’s no lobby per se. Acacia House, a restored Victorian-style mansion, originally constructed in 1905, serves as the social centre of the hotel. With grey-blue hues, antique glassware and just the right amount of gloss, it’s a comfortable but elegant space to relax with a drink, or read the newspaper."
  8. Barraclough, Colin; Brady, Sallie; Gill, Nicholas; Hack, Susan; Narayan, Shoba; Shalgosky, Charlotte; Stevens, Tara; Williams, Gisela (2010-01-21). "From the Americas to Europe to Asia, we checked out dozens of foreign hotel brands to find the places you'll want to check in to". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2023-05-16. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
    The article notes: "Brand Basics: Ten stylish small (mostly beach) hotels and villas in India, Indonesia, Laos, the Maldives, and Thailand. The Good: Outstanding design, creative cuisine, and superb spas. The Bad: Bauhaus brutalism at some properties. Best For: Design intelligentsia desperate for seclusion, space, and serenity."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alila Hotels and Resorts to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per not bad independent and significant coverage in media. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur Se Katas Tak[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM, none of the sources in the article has information about the subject of the article. BEFORE showed promo and database listings, nothing that meets significant coverage from independent reliable sources addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 05:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has coverage same like an average Pakistani drama and has a notable cast. Muneebll (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A notable cast is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having a notable cast doesn't necessarily mean passing WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. All the cited sources are trivial mentions, so are the other coverage I found as well. Unless someone can provide sufficient coverage (even the ones in Urdu), the current article shouldn't really exist. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I would reconsider if someone provides in-depth coverage in Urdu. LibStar (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shankardev Shishu Vidya Niketan Bhuragaon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and wp:GNG. Sources are primary. No significant coverage. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Assam. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with very promotional content and no sources online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- keep As I have deleted all the promotional content from the article. And more references added to the article, including Board Of Secondary Education (the state education regulatory board under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Education, Government of Assam) regulated site: https://www.feeregulatoryassam.com/schools/sankardev-shisu-niketan-bhuragaon-morigaon
Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yahya Thesaurabhsaha (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is with the sources that you have added is that they are too short and too closely related to the subject for WP:GNG. Reading WP:N is a good place to start. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article are all primary, database, sources, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth by IS RS. Mutliple editors above did BEFOREs and were unable to find SIGCOV in any sources. If there is an alt spelling or another name this org goes by that has sigcov, ping me. I didn't look for possible alt names. // Timothy :: talk 05:04, 22 May 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kafuko Stanley[edit]

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

My understanding is that his role of social media administrator and digital content manager is not sufficient to meet WP:NPOL. While he does have some media coverage because of being one of many politicians arrested, the sources like Independent, only address him once in passing, so would be trivial coverage rather than significant. The article is also an autobiography so we need to be wary of a conflict of interest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the prominence of this person's political arrest brings them to notability to the GNG threshold IMO. These facts can be established through reliable sources. That GNG threshold is met even without the need for reliance on the SIGCOV presumption.

You are correct that his role of social media administrator and digital content manager is not sufficient to meet WP:NPOL; but that clearly isn't the reason this article was created in the first place. His notability arises through his nature as a political figure & the circumstances of his arrest; and the fact that his arrest has been covered by numerous sources.

One alternative proposal would be to merge this article with a separate article covering the arrests of all of the members in this incident. As it stands though, that article doesn't exist and so we should keep for now. Jack4576 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG the coverage is not good enough Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention - every article that mentions Kafuko Stanley mentions him only trivially. In fact, mentioning him just once is a textbook example of trivial coverage. Also per WP:CRIME, A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article and furthermore also per CRIME Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Lastly we have WP:AUTOBIO which strongly discourages autobiographies. I can't see how this would be one of the very few that would be acceptable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that there is a presumption that this person is notable per SIGCOV. Neither is WP:CRIME even slightly relevant to this discussion.

I am arguing that this person is notable regardless, for reasons of the political persecution of this subject. This attribute of the subject, in my view, elevates him to the status of being a notable subject under GNG. Jack4576 (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SpiderOne's analysis of (lack of) sourcing is accurate, as is the clear guidance at WP:CRIME that articles should not be created on people who may only be known for alleged crimes. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the notability does not arise from a criminal issue, it is a political issue. Jack4576 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which source(s) establish notability? I've searched and can only find sources that mention him just once, in passing, along with a bunch of other people that were also arrested, none of whom seem notable enough to warrant their own article either. Sources added, like Nile Post, do not address Stanley in any significant detail whatsoever. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a new page about the arrest of these persons collectively would be a better solution ? Jack4576 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, presuming the event itself is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG; done deal. You may chalk me up, by the bye, in asserting that whether it can be argued that a subject has faced political persecution is an element found in no notability criterion on Wikipedia, and is a spurious argument to use at AfD. Ravenswing 01:48, 22 May 2023 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loree Rodkin[edit]

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

Almost every single source is an WP:INTERVIEW, with just one exception. In addition, sources in the article (and those that I could find online) seem to be hype and not sustained, or they are passing mentions (... which was designed by Loree Rodkin ...) WP refs search returns most recent result as 2014, for example. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in the Daily Mail, New York Post, both are non RS. Chicago Tribune looked promising but it's a Q&A. I can't find stories about her that we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads promotional in nature with all primary sources; doesn't tell us why the subject is notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, California, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I have added sources on her later work with Michèle Lamy and the grandson of Kilian Hennessy, and some other content, which includes some articles from British Vogue, Interview magazine, Los Angeles Times, and Hollywood Reporter. Bridget (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article already cites this good LATimes profile. Additional sources include Chicago Tribune (only the second half is interview), W magazine profile, and Arab News (combination interview profile). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed all interviews/promotional pieces, and the Chicago Tribune link doesn't work. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, these are mostly much more profile than Q&A, and there's no indication they're promotional in the sense of not being reliable independent sources ... she seems to be a well-covered public figure (archive of Tribune interview) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hameltion's sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:50, 22 May 2023 (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. Only keep !vote is unsigned and citing irrelevant comparators. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jambu Maharishi[edit]

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

Non notable film. Google search brings up nothing. No second reliable review. DareshMohan (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Kindly please put in draft. Monhiroe (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks sources, significance and notability. Neutral Fan (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Take_Diversion , My Dear Lisa these pages existent with 1 reviews. It may also be live.
Comment - 2 reliable reviews is not necessary when you have in-depth/multiple production sources from reliable sources such as The Times of India, etc. which this article is lacking. DareshMohan (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asan Memorial Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gets passing mentions in gnews. Article mainly based on primary sources. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MCTM Chidambaram Chettyar International IB School[edit]

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Public School[edit]

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soulflower brand[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 en.wp article Soulflower has been created and deleted a number of times without a formal deletion discussion. In my in opinion, an articles for deletion discussion would appear to be appropriate here, if only to address its WP:NCORP concerns. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed, and agree with the rationale, better than another speedy. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am not related to the company or brand and each time I improve my article, it gets speedy deletion instantly. I believe there is nothing in my post that is promoting the brand and if there is anything like that, I am ready to remove that part. Sandipan1997 (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page should not be deleted 2409:40C0:1031:410:A84C:B5FF:FEED:4738 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no advertisement in the page 2405:204:2003:8A7D:0:0:BBE:E0A0 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Page is relevant and useful 219.91.244.26 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the post is okay and it should be there 219.91.244.26 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is fine 2405:204:20A6:1284:0:0:2389:40AD (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine and relevant 2409:40C0:100D:2143:EC7B:A8FF:FE66:4920 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The brand's founder needs to be noted. Everything else is fine 2405:204:22AC:DCD5:0:0:66B:60A5 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that the page should be there 2409:40C0:4D:6C84:44F4:60FF:FE41:39F5 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the IPs above have no other edits outside this AfD. Also note that Sandipan1997 has been blocked for self-promo. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the current references are interviews/press-releases, with a strong probability that they were actively prompted by the company, and with no independence. My google search turned up their products on amazon, a lot of completely unrelated stuff, and the most abysmal review of their ethics by their employees at glassdoor.co.uk, which is neither relevant nor something the article's proponents probably want to see used. With no independent sourcing, we can't have an article. Elemimele (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:Library convinces us otherwise. (To the IP participants above: This is exactly the same kind of fluff they talk about at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the comments above, no evidence of reliable and independent sources covering this "company."Esolo5002 (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes It's independent source Mridhamalay82 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)— Mridhamalay82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note:. Confirmed sock. Courcelles (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are references from India Today and The Economic Times which are independent news magazines. I do not know why these channels are deemed as not independently and not reliable sources Sandipan Banerj (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note:. Confirmed sock. Courcelles (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG it is also promotional in tone and would need a complete re-write with reliable sources to fix that. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dniproavia destinations[edit]

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

Fails the 2018 RFC that decided complete lists of airline destinations are not to be hosted on Wikpedia. EDIT: A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close. Additionally fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

Even if the RFC were to be overturned somehow, and the NOT issues removed - neither of which appears possible - WP:CORP would still be failed since the only source for this article that is clearly about the activities of a commercial organisation and falls within CORP, is the website of the company itself and an article on a blog/specialist website. WP:BEFORE searching is not required here since the failures of this article are more fundamental than a mere lack of notability (and BEFORE is anyway not a strict requirement), but I did a search anyway and found nothing that would remedy this.

I note from the talk-page of this article that it was previously nominated for deletion in 2015. With all respect to the people who !voted in that AFD, I think we can now see that this was a mistake, and was super-ceded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and the AfD on the exact subject of lists of airline destinations. So, specifically not encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom but prefer WP:BUNDLE henceforth. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Shaw[edit]

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

Non-notable player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Prod was contested, and some references were added to the talk page, but there was nothing provided beyond routine coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: alas, it is but with a heavy heart I must concede this page does not meet our cherished requirements for GNG, nor SPORTBASIC. As such, I am compelled to vote 'delete'; sad as I am to extinguish trivialities & curiosities from our cherished global compendium Jack4576 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched ("Mitch Shaw" league ) and only comes up with passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfair Capital Investment Management[edit]

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

The reason we are asking for this page to be deleted as we are changing our name to our parent company Swiss Life Asset Managers. As they no longer have a wikipedia page either, we need to have this one removed so that it does not confuse clients as Mayfair Capital will cease to exist from the 15th May 2023. I am the marketing associate at Mayfair Capital hence why I am asking for this to be removed on behalf of the company. MunsatMCIM55 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that’s not a reason to delete. The article can simply be updated to include the renaming with a red link to SLAM. If an organisation was ever notable it remains notable for Wikipedia purposes even after it ceases to exist. Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that but as Swiss Life Asset Managers do not have a Wikipedia page, we would prefer to delete as it will confuse clients. A lot of the information on the current page is also now very dated so if it were to stay up, the majority of would need to be deleted as it's irrelevant. It would make it easier if the page was taken down for that sake. MunsatMCIM55 (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but that’s still not a reason for deletion. We’re not here to keep clients updated but to provide an independent and authoritative record of a company even if it no longer exists. I’m happy to edit the article to make clear that the information is not current, and if you can give me links to a couple of sources for the name change I’ll add them in. Mccapra (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve updated the article as I suggested above, and am therefore !voting to keep it. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great, thank you very much for making those updates! MunsatMCIM55 (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:CSK#1 and/or WP:CSK#3—no valid deletion rationale is given. I do not have the time to dig in to the history to see if the company is actually notable, so I make explicit note that this !vote is solely based on the lack of valid rationale advanced by the nominator; I have no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion on substantial grounds. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:40, 20 May 2023 (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. G5 applies. Courcelles (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saberov Ruslan Yuryevich[edit]

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

The author of this article, and apparently his or her sockpuppets, repeatedly deletes the notability and other templates that established editors have inserted. In any event, Saberov Ruslan Yuryevich does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:MUSICBIO. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no Significant coverage and fails to meet notability requirements set out in WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — qualifying for a Wikipedia article requires them to be the subject of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in real media, verifying that they pass one or more criteria listed in WP:NMUSIC. But this cites no GNG-worthy sources at all (it's based entirely on primary sources, like Spotify and MusicBrainz and PR from his own record label, that are not support for notability at all), and says absolutely nothing about his career that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than that. And the nominator's allusion to the removal of maintenance templates from the article continued even after this discussion was opened — I found the page miscategorized without the template on it, noticed the deletion nomination in the edit history and readded the template, only to have it almost immediately reverted back off the article by the creator again — to the point where I've had to apply partial page protection to shut it down. And then they tried erasing most of the content in this discussion to replace it with the MusicBrainz link below, which is also not acceptable behaviour. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~https://musicbrainz.org/artist/7fc25c29-a869-4887-88ad-82fa67fef547 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavik0gree (talk • contribs)~~ strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBrainz is not a notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He appears to be one of those journeyman musicians hanging around the edge of his country's rock scene, getting gigs on nostalgia tours, filling in for someone who's sick, helping out in studio sessions, etc. But at least under this spelling of his name, he has achieved nothing beyond credits in the works of others. Not enough for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Bearcat and a quick search for RSes...or anything besides MusicBrainz, Spotify, Amazon, Fandom, SoundCloud, or Facebook. Slavik0gree (the creator) has also created this at the English Wikinews. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NOFXXX812. One of the socks was globally-locked as an LTA on May 3rd, so any creations after that are G5able.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitão Brasil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced for over a decade, only user-generated material showing up on Google, and very little of this seems to be about this character. Desperately want to be supportive of pages on non-English language comics, but this one looks like a clunker. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Searching "Capitão Brasil" quadrinho on Google News gives me four results on Brazilian websites I'm unfamiliar with. It might be possible to write an article on this character, but there's so little to work with that it's a comfortable deletion, per GNG. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per Maplestrip, it seems to fail GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

The Complete New Zealand Music Charts, 1966-2006 : singles, albums, DVDs, compilations compiled by Dean Scapolo[edit]

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

I could find no evidence that this is a notable book (or author). Fram (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, and New Zealand. Fram (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to suggest that this is a notable work. It's apparently self-published, as the article itself suggests; Maurienne House has published a total of five books since 2007. One passing mention ("books recently published") on JSTOR, 6 citations according to Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only hit I get is a listing from the National Library of ZN, for copyright I suppose. I can't find critical reviews (nor any listing of any kind) for this book. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability thresholds are not met, including the WP:NBOOK criteria. The book is valid as a reference source (this Audioculture article references the book and Scapolo's research, and uses it to compile a list of New Zealand's record charts in the 1960s, suggesting that it is a good source), but it doesn't meet the threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article. The article creator's recent comment on the talk page suggests they may have thought they needed to create the page in order to cite it as a source, which is not the case (I've tried to clarify, hopefully clearly!). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted that the article creator has left comment on the talk page for this deletion discussion. He has linked to the Goodreads and bookstore pages for the book, which don't help in establishing notability. Again, this is not to say that the book isn't a useful source in its area, but simply that it doesn't meet the high notability threshold for an encyclopaedia. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2023 (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 because reason for nomination is wrong (the citations are absolutely independent of subject and also quite reliable). Also SNOW‎. SouthernNights (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Dowd Lambert[edit]

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

The references shown here either lack independence from the subject or are book reviews of the subject's work and tell us nothing about the subject herself. We need evidence of substantive discussion of the subject (not her works) in multiple reliable independent published sources to retain this article. A loose necktie (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Wow. The nomination is beyond inappropriate. It is not accurate. It needs to be withdrawn by the nominator or at the very least part of it stricken.

I said she meets WP: CREATIVE #3 when I created the article. She exceeds that. We've got coverage of her education, career, personal life. That coverage is in both Contemporary Authors and Something about the Author, which are beyond independent of her--they are 2 of the most respected publications in the field. We have where she's lived and some of what she's accomplished. We have how many links to reviews, some of them starred reviews, further satisfying CREATIVE #3? What is it you are not seeing @A loose necktie? Do you want to know where she went to high school, her date of birth (which many authors and others keep private for identity security reasons and which is irrelevant to notability)? The article is also lacking her hair color, eye color, height, and political and religious beliefs. Do you envision The Atlantic or CNN going into which Beatle or New Kid or Backstreet Boy was her favorite when she was a teen? Or do you think stub articles on notable women authors and academics should not exist? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It sounds like you are looking for a fight. I am not up for it. A loose necktie (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In cases such as this one, when it's been pointed out you were, at best, unaware of subject-specific notability guidelines and did not complete the required WP:BEFORE, you may be more comfortable not responding. That's okay.

Mischaracterizing sources and scope of the article in a nomination statement is a problematic. Problematic nomination statements should, can, and will be called out. However, curiously echoing my "wow" and then choosing to withdraw from the debate with what is treading close to incivility ("It sounds like you are looking for a fight") is... eh. @A loose necktie, please assume good faith of editors. You created a debate and placed an invitation to it on my talk page. I wrote about your points. You wrote about me. Who is looking for what here? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing enough reviews for a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR. One would expect that sources about an author would mainly discuss their written work; routine facts can be filled in per WP:SPS, or (better, and as in this article) by profiles in a bibliographic encyclopedia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CREATIVE and nomination statement mischaracterizes article and sources. Problematic. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:Author. Thriley (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:Author. ULPS (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AUTHOR and a poor overall nom rationale; the books are enough to clinch her N and I would not hope we need so much detail about her life over her published works. And if you're not up to defend your nom at all, Loose, I suggest withdrawing it so we don't have to deal with any further incommunication from that decision; you nominate, you defend and listen. Nate • (chatter) 13:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole argument that book reviews "don't tell us anything about the author" makes no sense. People are noteworthy because of their accomplishments; an author's accomplishments are their books. XOR'easter (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (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. When viewing the comments through the lens of the relevant notability guidelines, there is a consensus to delete. Aoidh (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Cook[edit]

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

Local councillor. Fails WP:NPOL Park3r (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Park3r (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non notable councillor. No in-depth coverage to meet WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took one search of "Kara Cook" and "Queensland" into Google to find three SIGCOV articles. Jack4576 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: SIGCOV from The Courier Mail means this subject must be presumed notable under GNG.

Plus, WP:BEFORE identified this, and this; please do some basic searches prior to nominations. Jack4576 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did search before nominating, and coverage in local papers (largely after her resignation) doesn't surmount the fact that ward councillors in Australia don't meet WP:NSUBPOL or WP:NPOL, nor does it meet WP:GNG. Park3r (talk)

For starters, SIGCOV gives rise to a presumption of notability under GNG regardless of the criteria within WP:NSUBPOL or WP:NPOL. Secondly, ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable. This isn't the ward councillor of Epping, this is Brisbane, arguably the -most- notable city council in Australia; especially given the ramp it has provided to federal parliament for the Greens in recent years. This is a notable council for its effect on Australia's political landscape, as any Australian with an interest in politics would know, (especially any Queenslander would know); and therefore its political actors are notable Jack4576 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is besides the point that the articles were written after her nomination. Please explain how that goes to notability. Jack4576 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable". Absolutely false, again inventing notability criteria that doesn't exist. wp:NPOL does not grant automatic notability to below state/provincial level. This is consistently applied across Wikipedia for years. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing under the criteria under wp:NPOL, I am arguing under GNG, as stated above. Jack4576 (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use NSUBPOL in this manner; it is meant to be a supplementary essay, not an AfD argument. Curbon7 (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane City Council is already notable and safely has its own article. However, no Wikipedia policy grants its councillors inherent notability. It might even be the "most notable" in Australia, that still doesn't grant its councillors automatic notability. You need to learn this fact. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing for inherent notability of councillors. I am not arguing for the automatic notability of councillors.

I have simply pointed out, that this candidate has SIGCOV; which generates a presumption that they are notable.

As that presumption is met, they must, under GNG guidelines, be regarded as notable under that policy.

In the alternative, even if SIGCOV is not met, the politics of the Brisbane City Council are unique enough of a subject that I think there is a fair argument that each of its councillors are notable due to the unique political circumstances that surround this particular contested political office. Do you have any reasons to offer as to why this particular councillor is not GNG notable? Jack4576 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you say "ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable" . Have you now changed your mind? LibStar (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a strong argument that such people are notable; due to the prominence of their political roles; keeping in mind the context of Australian politics and the increasing political prominence of local councils in the national conversation. (Particularly due to the relationship between major metropolitan councils and housing politics in this country)

Note I am not arguing that these things are inherently notable; I am arguing that there are real-world reasons we should recognise that they are; and I have pointed to those real-world reasons.

Anyway; all of the above is moot. We have SIGCOV here and the only consideration of relevance is that under the guidelines; there is a presumption that this candidate is notable. The only decision available, that being the case, is Keep Jack4576 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has established notability guidelines which are assessed in deletion discussions. Your "real world reasons" is again aligning with your keep preferences and an attempt to assign notability based on new invented criteria that was not reflect Wikipedia community consensus. I see that you are now trying to challenge notability guidelines on their talk page to shift them to align to your preferences. As I said before, feel free to create your own online encyclopedia where all Brisbane councillors get an article. LibStar (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GNG is the applicable guideline, and under GNG; if SIGCOV is established the subject is deemed notable.

You still haven't engaged with the sources to explain why SIGCOV is not applicable here. We're waiting. Jack4576 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you retract your statement "ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable"? LibStar (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In certain circumstances (which are made out on the facts here) common sense would suggest that they are Jack4576 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on NPOL:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."

You keep referring to the special rules that apply to politicians LibStar, instead of actually doing what is required under the policy; which is to determine whether this person meets general notability standards under the general notability guidelines.

Here, the myriad of local press coverage amounts to SIGCOV. (IMO)

You still have yet to engage with the guidelines as they have written, despite the length of this thread. Jack4576 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOL doesn't apply for councillors, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated in WP:NPOL for "Politicians and judges": "The following are presumed to be notable:
• Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (emphasis mine). Kara Cook clearly meets this test. Furthermore, Cook also meets the notability standards within SIGCOV. MarioBayo (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) missing signature added MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mystery !Voter. Could you please clarify which sources you consider meets the threshold of "significant press coverage"? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was me on my iPhone. The Courier Mail article, this Brisbane Times article, and this Brisbane Times article. Jack4576 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is MarioBayo another account of yours? Apologies if I've misunderstood the situation. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, MarioBayo is not my account. The amended signature should be for this account. Jack4576 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all quite confusing. I added the signature to the unsigned !vote (beginning with "As stated in WP:NPOL for") that was written by MarioBaro: [12].

So which post are you referring to as "That was me on my iPhone" please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I wrote that post and forgot to sign it. Maybe I'm misremembering, I wrote a lot of similar comments yesterday. Jack4576 (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Town or city councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and just having a handful of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local media is not sufficient to claim that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from NPOL — every councillor in every town or city always gets some local hits in the local media, so if that were how it worked then every councillor would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because no councillor would ever be subject to it at all anymore. So the bar for inclusion of local councillors is not "local media coverage exists", it's "they have an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, above and beyond what most other councillors could just as easily show, thus providing a credible reason why this person could legitimately be deemed a special case of much greater individual notability than the norm", which isn't what the sourcing on the table here is showing. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is claiming this is 'just because they exist'. Brisbane city council is the most powerful council in Australia. There's your reason.

Any before anyone asks; yes, it is a more politically powerful council than Sydney or Melbourne comparatively.

You're not an Australian contributor, so you lack this context. Jack4576 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is claiming WP:INHERITED notability, which is an erroneous approach. Also, there seem to be 26 wards, which would “dilute” the inherent importance of individual councillors even if we were to accept your argument (which I don’t). Park3r (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2023 (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 Warhammer 40,000#Tyranids with content to be merged at editorial discretion. If the content outgrows what can be reasonably included at Warhammer 40,000, it can be split off. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranid[edit]

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

Pretty much the last WH faction remaining as a stand-alone article outside Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000). I couldn't find anything serious here outside one thesis here that discusses this fictional entity. There are of course zillion fan-news, but they are just rehashes of plot summaries [13] and how-to-play, with a side of "look at this cool mini" [14], with no analysis of this faction that I can see. I suggested redirecting this to Warhammer_40,000#Tyranids unless someone can find sources I am missing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does independent sources in the meaning of WP:GNG exclude Games Workshop publications: clearly, those aren't run by the Tyranids themselves (as far as we know), but I'm not sure I'm entirely happy to call them 'independent' in the conventional sense. I'm not sure I've got the details or chronology right here, but what's the state of coverage as regards e.g. these creatures as inspiration for other pop cultural phenomena, such as the Alien films or in Starcraft? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Generally, yes, that's how we understood that. Publications by the IP holders are not considered independent (a Marvel-published 'encyclopedia' of Marvel universe would not count for estabilishing notability of Marvel characters, just like their comics won't count, etc.). So for GW stuff, their Codexes, novels, White Dwarf, etc. won't help much as they are all WP:PRIMARY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer_40,000#Tyranids, as this faction does not seem notable enough on its own to justify an article. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap and this is an extremely obvious search term. Dronebogus (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Have Zones of Control, p. 608, 611 and Slime Dynamics been considered as secondary sources? Humanismus, Transhumanismus und Posthumanismus im fiktiven Universum von Warhammer 40,000, p. 33, 40-42, 49 also has a sizeable section on the Tyranids, although it is plot-heavy. If that together should not be considered enough for a stand-alone article, at the very least the sentence based on Zones of Control gives creative background which would improve the Warhammer 40,000#Tyranids section, currently lacking secondary sources, in a merge. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source with a small bit of commentary is this Polygon article. Additionally I wonder if "the Tyranid minis are cool", and why, should not be relevant commentary, as my understanding of Warhammer is that miniatures, combat rules, and universe are all important components of the game. Daranios (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a bit of an outsider to this topic, I'd encourage that; the current page on the game could do with more focus on how the models and concepts themselves were conceived, developed and brought into production, which would help with its current in-universe perspective problem. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble seeing SIGCOV in Zones... but the Slime Dynamics treatment is quite good - certainly a good source to keep note of! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: This article from The Gamer has a sizeable section on the Tyranids in the Magic: The Gathering crossover. Wargamer.com has articles on the Tyranids and their sub-faction of the Genestealers. All three do plot-summary, but also review the faction with regard to gameplay. So overall I see no reason why there should not be enough material for a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Daranios with sources found. BOZ (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2023 (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 06:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Grandma[edit]

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

Article about an internet personality that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose or disagree with your decision. The subject only has 1 news article associated with her name and the news source is a local news source, not a national news source. However, I believe the subject's prominence online would make her a good candidate for an article here. Lolza81 (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's not how Wikipedia works. Articles have to pass through guidelines (namely WP:GNG), not some vague statement about "the subject's prominence", which is debatable considering they only have ~300,000 subscribers, which really isn't much when dealing in an area that lacks reliable sources. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a surprising amount of angry grandmas online [15], [16], [17], none of which seem to be this person. "Angry grandma" and "internet" still gets you a few dozen. Delete for any sort of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It seems to be a more appropriate entry on Knowyourmemes than on Wikipedia. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2023 (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 Piaget's theory of cognitive development. ✗plicit 06:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structural stage theory[edit]

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

The concept of a "structural stage theory" is only mentioned on JSTOR a total of 6 times, all to do with Piaget's theory. This article should be deleted per WP:SIGCOV, as it appears to be trying to generalize the concept to promote the WP:FRINGE theories of Ken Wilber - car chasm (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Piaget's theory of cognitive development - There does seem to be some coverage in reliable sources of this concept but almost all in relation to Piaget's theory of cognitive development (eg. [18], [19], [20], [21]). The present article appears to be trying to discuss this concept as a broader academic idea but I don't see the reliable sources to support this. In order to do this, we'd need reliable sources which explicitly discuss Piaget's theory in relation to the others mentioned here and call this collection of ideas "structural stage theory". In the article, there is one source from Piaget and then two sources which do not appear to use the phrase "structural stage theory" (and one of those is an unpublished masters dissertation). Thus this article appears to violate WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NOTESSAY. WJ94 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, this is not independently notable but is worth a redirect and possibly a very brief mention at the target article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E-Novation[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor and possible advert. Could not find any sources to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, obvious advert. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and unable to locate anything. The awards listed aren't persuasive as to notability Jack4576 (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relies exclusively on being recipient of several small awards, and search only yielded promotional pieces or trivial mentions of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2023 (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. Open for nearly a month, if there's been no keep rationale by now I don't think we're going to get one. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Klein (director)[edit]

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

Prolific theatrical person, but I'm not showing extensive coverage in RS. Plenty of name drops, nothing more. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of Broadway directors who do not have Wikipedia articles. A NY-based director/choreographer who has never worked on Broadway and never won (or, apparently, been nominated for) an Obie or Lortel Award (never mind Drama Desk, Critics' Circle, or Drama League Award) is not one of the more notable directors in New York. I also note that the "bluelinked" references to Around the World in Eighty Days are misleading, as the musical does not have a Wikipedia article and, indeed, the particular production directed by Klein is claimed to have been at a different theatre in the page that is linked. See WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Around the World in Eighty Days I bluelinked to the section heading on the novel's page for "Adaptions and Influences," which discusses the specific Mark Brown production. Moving forward, should I not make section links like these?

Re: the Around the World in Eighty Days theater, good catch––checking it out, I see this theater has been called "The New Theater at 45th Street," the "Davenport Theater," and the "AMT Theater" within the past ten years. I made that correction for accuracy. This is detailed on the AMT Theater page.

Re: noteworthy, I was taking a cue from other Off-Broadway and Off-Off Broadway NYC theater director pages like May Adrales, Erin B. Mee, Richard Kimmel, Carl Schmehl, Jeff Whiting, and others who don't have Obie/Lortel/Drama Desk/Critics Circle/Drama League awards/noms. TheatreHawk (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sections about less noteworthy productions, and added sources: Time Out New York, New York Times, New York Post, Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, The Village Voice, Rolling Stone TheatreHawk (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Razik Zarook[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion because I do not believe the sources within this article meet our notability guideline for biographies. Sources available do not discuss the article subject in significant depth. Coverage is routine. No evidence of significant coverage over a sustained period of time. Most sources within are primary. The Bloomberg source is just a profile, per NCORP such standard profiles are generally not counted towards notability for corporations and for the same reason I do not consider this one source to constitute notability for this otherwise non-notable lawyer. Entire article is written like a resume and whiffs of self-promotion. Was de-prodded without reason by the creator of the article (who has disclosed they are paid to edit Wikipedia) without any reason. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sri Lanka. Skynxnex (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Requires significant coverage - noting the Chairman of the Insurance Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka, Ambassador and High Commissioner roles are not automatically notable. All the references are merely mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2023 (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!} 02:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rogers Travel Group[edit]

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

No coverage to meet WP:CORP. Possible advert. Sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT following a search of Google, GNews, and GBooks. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LaKisha Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sadly, fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Michigan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and sustained coverage. See People (2007), MI Live (2012), MI Live (2015), East Village Magazine (2018). There's also coverage of her 2022 starring role in the musical adaptation of The Color Purple. pburka (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's had legal troubles after Idol, circa 2015 [22]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of civil court news seems like the kind of undue scandal/titillating claim that is excludable by WP:BLP policy and therefore does not contribute support to notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shows continued coverage in media, not a contributor to notability, but helps keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if tabloid-style scandal was all there was in addition to American Idol, it would not support keeping a standalone article, because a breach of WP:BLP policy can be a reason for deletion, and a redirect would likely be more appropriate. I recognize how it is continued coverage and how her Idol notoriety seems to have led to coverage of the civil case, but I think WP:BLP and WP:NOT should also be considered when assessing encyclopedic notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BASIC and sustained coverage that can help develop the article; in addition to sources identified by pburka, there are reviews for her album So Glad I'm Me: MLive 2009; AllMusic; some biographical coverage in The Houston Chronicle 2007; and some biographical coverage in My City Magazine 2018. She also appeared on The Winner Is in 2013, with coverage from MLive [23], [24]. Beccaynr (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG and shows continuous coverage over time, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2023 (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 05:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iosefa Maposua[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bapari[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haiti and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several good citations papermag, Rarepeace (interview, but has a good intro that can be used towards notability, 2 writeups in Resident Advisor RA1, RA2. RA is a well known publication for EDM artists.Pershkoviski (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The references you cite are the exact issue here. The first two are interviews, the second two are mentions and from an unreliable sources. Please see WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:BLPSOURCES. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews both have an intro which contribute towards overall notability per WP:BASIC which states if there are not enough in-depth articles, they can be combined to demonstrate notability. Pershkoviski (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. The sources listed above come the closest to meeting guidelines, but they fail Source eval:

Promo interview >> https://www.rarepeace.com/post/exploring-music-producer-bapari-and-the-brand-new-single-fusion
Promo interview >> https://www.papermag.com/bapari-no-sesso-nyfw-2020x-2640307739.html
Promo review for a song, nothing meets SIGCOV for the artist >> https://ra.co/reviews/33713
Track listing, nothing meets SIGCOV for the artist >> https://ra.co/features/3951

BEFORE and article found sources are either promotional or off-topic mentions. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 19:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The lone keep vote was rendered irrelevant by the pointing out of the fact that the sources are just interviews, or mentions in unreliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Off-wiki canvassing for this topic. - here. Zaathras (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2023 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full-Option Science System[edit]

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

tagged as possibly non-notable since 2015; a search for sources disclosed no studies of this system as of 2020, and not much else. ~T P W 13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link in the nomination says no studies of Full Option Science System™ (FOSS) were found that fell within the scope of the Science review protocol and met WWC evidence standards, which is a narrower claim than it might have first come across. A Google Scholar search finds, e.g, Robardey et al. (1994), Holahan et al. (2004), Mangrubang (2004), Zimmerman et al. (2011), and others. XOR'easter (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The tone isn't quite encyclopedic, but I think wiki-notability is established. XOR'easter (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2023 (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 00:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilash Pillai (film writer)[edit]

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

NN film writer/actor whose claims to notability seem to be inherited from the notability of the films he worked on. Has been moved to *and* from draft space multiple times by various UPE socks, so let's have a community decision. UtherSRG (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. UtherSRG (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It's just too many socks. Agreed with UtherSRG. CastJared (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Isn’t a notable actor or script writer. The socks make it even more of a reason to delete. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources are in Malayam, and I'm not familiar which are in RS. I can't find coverage for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of them are not reliable sources and created many accounts --Monhiroe (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Monhiroe. Additionally, many of the editors there are blocked. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 21:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT as well: most of the coverage based on the movie Malikappuram. Given the history of UPE socking involved, salting would prevent any more bad attempt of recreation. 202.83.41.48 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2023 (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.