Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 15	May 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pabitra Puppies edit

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

The web series has a review in the Times of India which goes per point 1 of WP:NFO, but there is no other review made by nationally known critics. Neither of other 4 points of WP:NFO are satisfying. The major references are announcing the release of the web series, which is a part of any film distribution/promotion. No Major Film Awards either. Not saifisfyng WP:NF as a whole.Dixiku (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of TV-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This doesn't appear to be a film, so I am not sure WP:NFO or WP:NF applies. WP:TVSHOW might be the guidelines it should be judged as to see if notable or not. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23 since it was a one season web series, my initial thought was it may fall under NFILM. Per TVSHOW, it says It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. It also says that this local criteria is subordinate to the RS policy. There are not enough RS for this web series and it has a local target audience so not notable. Dixiku (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be adding more PR and other staffs so then it will be more eligible.

Delete there is a one news from indiatoday.in but apart from there is nothing else. I don't consider spotboye.com, pinkvilla.com Tellychakkar.com as WP:RS. I also searched with Bengali name but didn't find anything notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSHOW. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable TV show fails GNG. (Noting that the Times of India isn't a particularly reliable source, and the remaining references are either passing mentions or reiterations of the press release.) ——Serial 12:34, 24 May 2021 (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 Tampa Bay Rays first-round draft picks. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 12:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ames edit

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

Non-notable minor league player, tagged with notability concerns since 2018, fails WP:NBASE. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tampa Bay Rays first-round draft picks. Spanneraol (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect. Don't keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2021 (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.

Nomination withdrawn. The result was keep (non-admin closure) --Kemalcan (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Laupa edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Kemalcan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NTENNIS as a Fed Cup player, also found plenty of GNG-passing sources very quickly [1] [2] [3] [4]. Iffy★Chat -- 08:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I skipped that she was a Fed player. Sorry for the inconvenience. Nomination withdrawn. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (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 G7 deleted by User:Fastily. Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Milovanović edit

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

Milovanović fails WP:NTENNIS. Dewritech (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dewritech (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when more accomplishments are achieved. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as the creator of this page, I am accepting of it's proposed deletion and support it being removed. I appreciate the page review, thank you for your time. mcburk (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2021 (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. Creator asked for deletion, no other significant contributors. Fences&Windows 14:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gislaine Corsi edit

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

Indistinguishable from a hoax. The same applies to several of the other articles the author has created about this supposed noble house. Can't find a single mention of this subject, not even in the sources cited [5]. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probable hoax. Google searches return nothing relevant, bibliography seems to be composed of books on architecture (?) and sources are not easily verifiable. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 19:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hii @Þjarkur: this quote, specifically, from Rondoni's busts, was mentioned because it was in the possession of the family and was mentioned in the family history in another book. The disposition of the busts for sale can be accessed here and here. In all the books in the bibliography section, they are mentioned selling some object that belongs to the palaces, or that they briefly pass on to the family, so I put this pdf about Domenico's busts, as they report the moment of the sale. I recommend reading here, here, here, here and here, all of these books are for sale on the international amazon. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O Correto (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how that is relevant to the subject of this article – Thjarkur (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok!! What do you think needs to be introduced in addition to the biographical sources and the other sources? (O Correto (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete highly promotional l article on former nobility , emphasising reltionshiup with other non-notable former nobility. The referencess, as {{U|Þjarkur]] shows, are not directly eelevant to her at all. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

After hearing your opinion, I agree that the Article needs more sources! I'll put them together and then rewrite it, so I asked for the article to be deleted! Hugs! (O Correto (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2021 (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. Creator asked for deletion, no other significant contributors. Fences&Windows 14:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Corsi edit

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

There is something odd going on with this article. All of the sources that mention him are sponsored coverage. Half of the sources (the latter half) don't exist and have never existed. The reliable sources that are cited (related to him being linked to Da Vinci) do not mention him. He was not nominated for a literary prize, he registered his book for an incentive award list but did not win. He has no plays on Spotify and his most popular song on YouTube has 60,000 views. I can't find a single mention of him in a reliable newspaper. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article seems to be half WP:HOAX, half WP:PROMO for a non-notable YouTuber. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hii @Þjarkur:, I analyzed the problems pointed out and I noticed that some links are broken because they were translated by me. I can fix my mistake and adjust the links, sorry! About the news coming out on paid portals, I don't know about that, I just picked it up on google when I typed his name. There is a credible source who mentions him associated with Da Vinci through the Grupo Record portal here. About Youtube information, you can easily check it here, which counts his channel as having 6,327,126 views, this includes Youtube Music. Good night!! :) (O Correto (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Neither of these sources make the subject notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube.SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i fixed the links problem here. I believe that the article has good coverage by sources, it only had broken links due to my own fault, but I have already fixed the problem, so I believe that the article should be kept. I'm taking this comment based on articles that still exist without any sources because of its relevance, like Ciccillo Matarazzo. Thank you! (O Correto (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete promotionalism for non-notable former nobility , emphasising his connection with various noble hosues. WP is not a directory. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After hearing your opinion, I agree that the Article needs more sources! I'll put them together and then rewrite it, so I asked for the article to be deleted! Hugs! (O Correto (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Jolie edit

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

The article about Jade Jolie does not meet any of the three criteria listed WP:ENT. The performer's notability is only relevant in the context of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5), so a redirect could be an option too. Other events listed in the page fail WP:NOTGOSSIP. Underpaid Intern (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I've done enough sourcing review to determine Wikipedia could have a decent entry about the subject if expanded to full potential. I disagree with nominator's rationale and see more to their story than Drag Race. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination rationale of "The performer's notability is only relevant in the context of RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5)" is simply not true. Jolie appeared on RPDR in 2013. In 2019, she appeared in Taylor Swift's "You Need to Calm Down" music video, as well as appearing with her at the VMAs. There's coverage for the music video, including standalone articles solely about Jolie from the Courier-Journal here and Fox19 here. There are dozens of articles from 2019 about how John Travolta (and Gigi Hadid) mistook Jolie for Taylor Swift at the VMAs (three of which are currently listed in the article, so I won't belabor that point). There's coverage from other events as well, including: a 2019 piece about a restaurant naming a drink after her here; a 2019 piece about her headlining a show here; a 2020 appearance in AJ and the Queen here; etc. There's ongoing coverage apart from her stint on RPDR over a number of years and events. I think the subject easily passes GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per thorough rationale put forward by Kbabej. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kbabej. They did a very good job with showing how this individual has received coverage for events outside of RuPaul's Drag Race. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Eat North" does not appear to be a reliable source. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:38, 23 May 2021 (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 00:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Kettle edit

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only for having lived to be 102. To be fair, at the time this was created we did have a rule that reaching the age of 100 was "inherently" notable due to its relative rarity -- but that's long since been deprecated, and centenarians are no longer handed an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume and depth of reliable sourcing. But the only source here is a very short entry in a regional history encyclopedia, which is obviously a valid start but not enough all by itself if it's the only source he has, and I haven't been able to find anything else of value. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the guidelines being a centenarian is not enough to have a stand alone article. There's not enough coverage on the subject. I have checked several articles this one can be merged with but failed to find a proper target. Less Unless (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entry in an encyclopedia is enough for me to prove notability, however it is not enough for sourcing and needs further RS. Needs improvement, but not deletion. --hroest 13:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: centenarian is not enough to have an arcticle, fails WP:BIO CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Please ping me if anyone would find more sources. Currently, It does also not meet requirements for WP:GNG.--Kemalcan (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Karara edit

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only have minor roles in films and TV series CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the best and most famous Egyptian actors at the moment alongside Ahmed Ezz & Karim Abdel Aziz. He starred in three films, becoming the highest-grossing movies in the history of Egyptian cinema [ar]!

Forced Escape (2017) - Original Title: Horoob Ettirari [ar].
No Surrender (2018) - Original Title: Harb Karmouz [ar] (Karmouz War) PS: This movie also stars English actor Scott Adkins.^[1]
Casablanca (2019) - Original Title: Kasablanka [ar].

He also starred a number of TV series that have achieved great success, such as Al-Ikhtiyar [ar] (The Choice).^[2]--TheEagle107 (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Karara's "Harb Karmouz" becomes Egypt's highest grossing movie in one day". egyptindependent.com.
^ "Review: 10 Reasons Behind "Al Ikhtiyar" Success". Sada El-Balad English.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable actor that easily meets GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 21:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes BASIC. ——Serial 12:36, 24 May 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmay Telang edit

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

The subject is a co-producer of some upcoming films which are not yet notable, and he does not meet WP:GNG. If we ignore the sponsored sources (The Hindustan Times article does not appear to be independent, and they are known for printing unmarked sponsored content) and press releases, we have one source that quotes him. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent coverage, does not meet GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the Hindustan Times article may be okay, but it is hard to be sure. Even if it was, it doesn't amount to enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The rest of the sources are way too thin to justify an article about this person. Laplorfill (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing with Laplorfill. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed El-Kurd edit

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

The Arabic page has been removed because he doesn't have any notability Aliaboomar (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems notable based on a quick search of sources. Article can be expanded. The editing decisions on another wiki have no bearing here. wp:otherstuffexists is not a strong argument for considering deletion. Ckoerner (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is in poor shape but a Google search gives ample results for WP:GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs work, it does meet the basic notability guideline for people according to WP:BASIC. Arabic article was nominated for speedy deletion without leaving space for discussion. Flycatchr 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in WP:RS. Looks as if there are some politics going on here. The nominator deleted references and referenced content from the article [6] after the keep !votes were added above. --John B123 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep El-Kurd's ability to capture the public imagination through his direct, frank rhetoric has created a shift in the public discourse around the Palestine/Israel. The shift that he was able to create is in itself notable, and he's only 23 years old. Quotes from him are appearing on protest signs across the world (examples 1, 2). --Majdal.cc (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I believe that the article (Muhammad al-Kurd) is a temporary phenomenon or fame when a person, thing, or event becomes the focus of attention and a very wide fame without introductions and becomes the talk of the hour, and it enjoys wide media coverage or large contributions on the level of social networks, but after a certain period of time has passed the fame diminishes This thing becomes forgotten and completely disappears. This phenomenon is like a bubble that grows until it reaches a certain extent and then pops and disappears after that, and that is why some call it a "media bang." We must take care of the issues, not the personal articles! If the article of Muhammad al-Kurd remains, then this indicates that the English Wikipedia is transforming from knowledge and societal and scientific facts into a platform for publishing the names of characters who did not achieve this momentum of knowledge, I hope to re-evaluate the status of the article and delete it. Osps7 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Osps7, the article includes references from reliable sources talking about work of the subject prior to the most recent "media bang". A better example, in my opinion, would be someone like Amanda Gorman. She was doing work well before being in the global spotlight (and had a Wikipedia article) and continues to do so. But that's neither here nor there. If you have a disagreement based around policy I would encourage you to make it. Ckoerner (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pr all the above arguments; especially -Majdal.cc: I have found Mohammed El-Kurd's ability to sum up the situation to be ..... quite impressive, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met. I would note that this article probably comes under Arbpia (although the formal notices are not present) so strictly speaking, the nominator, with 200 live edits, should not be participating in formal discussions (ditto Osps7, 285 live edits). It's a bit late now, but you know, just sayin.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the Arbpia notices.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Josifoska edit

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS. Had been deleted through prod once before. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has never played in the Billie Jean King Cup or any other tournament that would give a presumption of notability. Searches in Macedonian and English did not yield any significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 21 May 2021 (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. Anarchyte (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauser C6 edit

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

Article made by an SPA, no sources, and I'm unable to find anything to so much as verify its existence. While I'm not going to say with certainty that it's a hoax, I wouldn't discount the possibility. Considering the Mauser C96 was selling very well to begin with, and a magazine-fed variant with the same ammunition capacity would confer almost no benefit, I don't see why Mauser would choose to make it in the first place. Loafiewa (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching Google only gives me Wikipedia mirrors and articles about the real Mauser C96. A long-lasting hoax (since 2009) that needs to be gone. Wizzito (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2021 (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 as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shahrian Nasl edit

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

Prod removed without explanation or improvement. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creator is blocked as a sock of User:Ashkan1399 (see SPI), so this is probably eligible for G5 (most other edits are DAB-assist/AWB etc.). --Blablubbs|talk 12:19, 17 May 2021 (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. czar 03:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Griffith edit

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

Noticed this because this was tagged for sports notability with only a first initial, which was a red flag, but my research shows that he was not the head coach, but rather the team captain and quarterback: [7]. A Griffith was the left end in 1890 as well [8].

While we tend to keep head coaching articles for passing WP:GNG, this article both fails WP:GNG and appears to be based on an incorrect premise that he was the head coach and not the team captain. My assumption is that these were effectively the same thing at the time, but I don't think this is eligible for a stand-alone article: I'd suggest merging and/or redirecting the information, probably to the list of Franklin & Marshall coaches in the template, or to the football program generally. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say first validate the information and then decide. If it can't be validated, we have our answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our man here is Bruce Griffith (1867–1956). See https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858279/evening-eagle/, ~~https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858279/evening-eagle/~~, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/76858230/obituary-for-bruce-griffith-aged-88/, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/23809993/bruce-griffith. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense! I found a Bruce Griffith in my search, but he was referenced in the context of a fraternity, not in a football sense, so I didn't list it here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the sources given above, none so far that I can see make the connection between this B. Griffith and the Bruce Griffith from Findagrave and the Evening Eagle. Perhaps it's in the first page of the latter article, as that one isn't given above (by accident I suppose). Even so, it doesn't look as if he was a notable headcoach, just like many other head coaches from this period. Fram (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've started to expand there article. Found another 1931 feature article that solidifies the Bruce Griffith, postmaster of Wichita, as the member of the Franklin & Marshall football team circa 1890. Between Griffith's college football exploits, work as a clergyman, military service, and civil service, I think he passes GNG, much like his F&M teammate and predecessor as captain, William Mann Irvine. It's unclear exactly whether Griffith was head coach or just captain of the F&M team in 1891 and 1892. Current day records on the F&M website credit him as both captain in 1892 and coach in 1891 and 1892; see https://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-footbl/Career_Stats/yearandcoach and https://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-footbl/Career_Stats/captains. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 1951 article sheds some light on F&M early captains doubling as coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not as a coach. The historical record (including this, this, this, and this) does not IMO support the assertion that Griffith was a "head coach." To the contrary, it shows that he was a student, player, and team captain during the 1891 and 1892 seasons. Many colleges (even major ones) did not have head coaches in the early 1890s, and team captains were the de facto team leaders. But captaincy is not the same as "head coach." I have encountered this situation before where college sports information departments, reporters, and Wikipedia editors, operating many decades after the fact, retroactively try to fill vacant "head coach" slots by inserting the names of the team captains. While referring to him as a head coach is not IMO historically accurate, Griffith does pass the GNG bar based on the coverage cited above and in the article (see also here and here). Cbl62 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your search terms were? I only found a small number of results, and none directly listing him as "Bruce Griffith." I did only limit it to the years in which he played, though, thinking about it. Also, the article's been well improved and I no longer support deleting it, but it should be more football-orientated. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used griffith “Bruce griffith” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup/edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the keep !votes seem to have the headcount, some of them are just vague waves at policy. Further discussion regarding the sources found and their applicability to passing GNG would be warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I agree on RandomCanadians previous argument for relisting, since then no new votes so give it another round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian:, @CommanderWaterford:: this discussion should be closed as keep. User:Cbl62 and I made substantive keep arguments that were not "vague waves" at policy. Paul McDonald and Ortizesp tersely endorsed those arguments as there really wasn't much more to say. User talk:Fram's delete vote is based largely on two false premises: 1) the "connection" (or alleged lack there off), which has been clearly demonstrated by the sources and 2) the claim that "many other head coaches from this period" are not notable—it's rather rare that we've been have been unable to show notability for a college football head coach of any time period. User:SportingFlyer, who nominated this article for deletion, has stated that he no longer supports deleting it. SportingFlyer, perhaps, you'd like to withdraw the nomination? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I don't understand the relist and hopefully someone will just close this as keep. My own personal preference would still be a redirect - I find WP:GNG marginal, I don't think he'd be notable if he hadn't captained F&M, which I'm not sure is notable regardless - but given the consensus, the improvement, and the fact my motivation for the AfD was being unable to clear the notability tag on my own, this should probably just be closed as keep already. My only request at this point is that we take care of the prose in the article stating he was the "head coach" as I've only seen him listed as captain, either by rewriting/explaining or citing a more contemporary article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:: Griffith is listed as a head coach in this 1951 article and here on the Franklin & Marshall website. That being said, some investigation in the status of all of F&M's captains / head coaches prior to Alfred E. Bull in 1896 warrants some more investigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I actually like that 1951 source, I'll use it to clean up the article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG based on the sources found by Jweiss11 and Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN#News. czar 03:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magandang Umaga Po edit

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

It fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN per SBKSPP. Missvain (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2021 (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 00:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Atwater edit

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

WP:BLP of a newspaper publisher and restaurateur, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for businesspeople. The notability claims here are that he founded some alt-weekly newspapers, a music festival and a pizza restaurant -- but none of those things are instant notability freebies that automatically entitle a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he did stuff, and rather they require a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage about the stuff he did to establish that it's been externally recognized as significant. But the only sources here are a brief namecheck of his existence in a non-notable and unreliable blog and a very short blurb in a specialist trade magazine, which is not enough coverage to get him over the bar. (I also had to strip one further footnote, which failed to mention Atwater or his pizza restaurant at all, and served only to tangentially verify that London has pizza restaurants.) Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more and deeper coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot find any secondary WP:RS that support notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did my due diligence and this subject fails our WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2021 (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 14:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Engineering College edit

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

No sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral While this is a very poorly written article I thought that secondary and post-secondary education institutions were normally regarded as notable? That said, I'm not sure if there is anything worth saving here. The article is unreferenced and often speaks of the institution in the past tense, linking to a defunct version of its website, although it does seem to still exist and have a current website here. If kept, it should probably be reduced to a stub and built up from sourced information. If deleted, that should be without prejudice to somebody writing a better article about it in the future. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would ask what relation, if any Parala Maharaja Engineering College has to this page? If none, I vote delete. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorTexan, No relation with Parala Maharaja Engineering College. Powerful Karma (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for answering my question! DoctorTexan (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going off the article this sounds like a private college. So it has to pass WP:NORG like any other private organization. Which it clearly doesn't considering the lack of references in the article and the fact that I could only find a single mention of it in a phone book. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained by Adamant1. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Adamant1. Peter303x (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2021 (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 Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds. Missvain (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja's College Stadium edit

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

No reliable sources to meet GNG. Better redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, where it is mentioned in passing - that section can be expanded. Giant Snowman 20:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, as a suitable WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, as alternative to deletion.--Hippeus (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maharaja's College, Ernakulam#College grounds, clearly not independently notable, but a viable redirect target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 18 May 2021 (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 14:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Womansplace Bookstore edit

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

Ephemeral local bookstore, utterly fails both the GNG and WP:CORP. Of the "sources" given in the article, three of them turn out to be small 1" and 2" cut-and-paste ads in obscure small-press publications, two others are short ad blurb in local APA newsletters, and the mention in the only published book listed is a namedrop. One can admire the article creator for the research skills needed to dredge up these half-century old obscure mimeoed sources, but meeting notability criteria they do not.

This is one in a string [9] of questionable article creations by the editor, a number of which have already been deleted, forcibly relocated to draftspace, or are up for AfD or prod. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Love a great old school feminist bookstore, but, this one doesn't past muster for WP:GNG. I did my due diligence by also looking on Jstor and Google Books and found nothing. I also checked Newspapers.com (where I am a paid subscriber) and found nothing but a few passing mentions in advertisements. Perhaps there are offline sources or books about Arizona history that document the subject, but, I find that hard to believe given it's lack of even internet coverage. Often there are blogs or publications that cover these types of cultural subjects, and even those don't exist (not that they would contribute to GNG, but, it shows how insignificant this one bookstore was, IMHO). Missvain (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Missvain. We don't include contemporary bookstores with similar profiles, and shouldn't include this one. Advertisements are not coverage that helps meet GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:56, 22 May 2021 (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 14:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Vranes edit

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

Tagged with notability concerns for a decade, fails WP:GNG, only thing I could find on him was the source in the article (searched in Serbian.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and a search doesn't bring up any results that will pass him for GNG. While I have not done a Serbian search myself I trust the noms search on the subject. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, a quick skim of Category:Serbian rugby union players shows that someone just dumped the squads of BRK Crvena Zvezda and Rugby Club Rad in the same substub format referenced only to the club website. Rugby union is barely a thing in Serbia, with about four active clubs, and it has hardly produced any notable players. Would someone please do the honors and nominate all players in the category? No such user (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Islamic Halal Organization edit

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

Virtually unreferenced promo piece on a non-notable organisation, fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. The only source cited isn't even about this organisation and only mentions it in passing, and a search finds nothing better. Granted, I can't search in Arabic, but the notability (and press release) tag has been there for almost 3 years with no improvements made, so I reckon that's fair warning given. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are quite a few hits from an Arabic search though nothing I’ve found so far that looks substantive or in depth - basic announcements of its existence etc. I’ve seen nothing to prompt me to say “keep” but I haven’t searched exhaustively. Mccapra (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its internet domain has expired and I can find nothing about it other than the Japan Olympics news story. Doesn't seem to merit its own article as it fails WP:ORG. It is mentioned once in Muslim World League, unsourced. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Powerful Karma (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2021 (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 00:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US Microbics edit

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

It is possible that this firm is notable, but the article is almost completely unsourced, written in a highly promotional manner, and makes claims for many firsts without any evidence whatsoever. I think it highly unlikely that a firm with a revenue of half a million dollars could have done any significant amount of what is claimed. The links to the various local newspapers go to the firm's website , not to the articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no coverage other than PR newswire stuff, listings, filings. Fails WP:NORG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just don't seem to be the sources to establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2021 (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. Sandstein 20:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Victory Bass edit

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

Article lacks quality references. I haven't found significant coverage in any reliable sources Subject might be better dealt with as part of the Gibson article? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced. Only produced as a four string guitar? A BASS? Wow. The Gibson Victory itself doesn't have an article, hard to see what from this article could even be arguably merged to Gibson. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added bunch of new citations, including some from books. It appears this was not a popular model, so there is not too much info about it, but I still feel the page should be kept to make Wikipedia a good research resource. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Fox edit

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

Another one of several pages concerning the now-deleted Fox family of Falmouth, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and most of the sources are Fox genealogy references or Fox family journals. Fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, please:

None of the references are genealogical sources. The two Journals of Caroline and Barclay Fox give an entertaining and informative picture of these influential people. Caroline has an ODNB article, as does her father. The initials AM in Barclay's journal usually mean an interesting tale of his elder sister.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk}

Possible keep -- As a founder of what seems to be a notable Cornish institution, attracting royal patronage in 1835. I think she is probably notable. I did not see the previous AFD which I might have objected to. The Fox family were also involved in Neath Abbey ironworks and a related foundry in Cornwall, both of which are certainly notable as producers of steam engines, principally for pumping out mines. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable figure in Cornish history; she also has an entry in the Cornwall Artists Index. Furius (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems to be a notable figure in Cornish women's history considering the coverage and events marking the 200th anniversary of her birth, passes WP:BASIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2021 (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. Sandstein 20:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Fox edit

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

Another one of several pages concerning the now-deleted Fox family of Falmouth, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, and most of the sources are Fox genealogy references. Fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abol Hussein Tanhai edit

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

Nominating on behalf of 49.177.30.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I am neutral. They posted at the Teahouse: A few days ago I worked on a couple of random articles from the Task Center that needed more wikilinks. One, Abol Hussein Tanhai, is really just a CV - résumé. It has a multiple issues banner/hat, which says just that, too, among several other problems. The main problem that strikes me, is that it has no reliable sources, and never has, since it was created in 2012 - none at all. There's a "Sources" section which consists of four links to web pages that are the subject's own blogs, personal, work pages, etc. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPROF, which states " Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose." They appear to have attained 'Assistant Professor' and 'Visiting Professor' status, so I think they fail that criterion. There are insufficient sources to check from the article, but I could find nothing significant on Google or in Google Books about them. Cutting through all the uncited waffle (which I was sooo tempted to excise), they appear to have written numerous books and published papers - but many academics do that, and that doesn't confer notability, per se. Have they made a significant impact on their subject area to the point of meeting WP:NBIO? I struggle to find anything to help me one way or another - so I fall on the side of non-notability at this time. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Nick Moyes indicated above. I tried Google but failed to get anything lol. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 07:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhila Srinivasan edit

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

Non-notable corporate professional. Being listed in Forbes listed is not an indication of notability since Forbes publishes many such lists. Fails WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, including because I found and added two in-depth profiles of her to the article: The Indian Express (2014), Femina (2016), and multiple independent and reliable sources find the Forbes recognition, and the reasons for the recognition, notable, e.g. HuffPost "Forbes said in less than a decade Srinivasan has catapulted Shriram Life Insurance into one of the top five private players in its industry in India in terms of profitability," The Hindu (includes a brief overview of her education and career development), The Economic Times/PTI, ZEENews/IANS. Beccaynr (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC) I also found and added a 2010 Business Today profile. Beccaynr (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC) There is also an in-depth profile in this book, and information from it has been added to the article: Amarnath, Nischinta; Ghosh, Debashish (2005). The Voyage to Excellence The Ascent of 21 Women Leaders of India Inc. Delhi: Pustak Mahal. ISBN 9788122309041. Beccaynr (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing these sources Beccaynr. Definitely keep. VV, can you teach me how to speedy keep without admin closure on this like you did for that vice chancelor article? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Thanks Beccaynr for the sources. VV 03:45, 17 May 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holland (musician) edit

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Zero independent coverage in RS, article created by a pair of SPAs, very much redolent of WP:UPE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article already has coverage in multiple reliable independent sources such as a review in Pop Matters here, Dallas Observer here and coverage in Indy Week here and here which has a full editorial staff as shown here so there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Perhaps the bands he's in are more notable? I'm looking at this strictly about Holland himself. He's had his music reviewed in No Depression, PopMatters twice[10], and in the Dallas Observer. I can't find much else, maybe because a Broadway musician shares his name. Those do qualify him through general notability guidelines, but, reviews can only go so far. I don't consider anything else sourced in that article qualifying for GNG, only WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does remain, we need to crop his wife out of that picture. I also requested permissions via Commons. Missvain (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Harriet Walter's sourcing, passes WP:ANYBIO (esp. see multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability).. ——Serial 12:42, 24 May 2021 (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. Sandstein 20:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahn Air Systems GmbH edit

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

Looks to be non-notable. EpicPupper (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article are sketchy: one is promotional, one is a broken link (at least for me), and the other is a Wikipedia article. Some (useless) routine coverage is available, see [11], [12], [13], [14]. Looking to WP:GNG, these pieces ([15] and [16]) in industry publications could lift them over the bar. They are both independent, are written by staff writers, and rise to the level of secondary coverage by analysing the company's business model. Naturally, I've added them to the article. I'm not saying this is a case of obvious notability but I would have expected somewhat more source analysis from the nominator. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Jhawer edit

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

the article is written like a CV beside that vowing support for any notable person doesn't makes anyone eligible enough to have an article, rest about her acting or singing career I found few articles but they seem promotional or are basically indicating importance of her co-star she has worked with rest are too promotional, A discussion is required in it. Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VV 08:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could have been speedy. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2021 (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 Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia (Pop Smoke song) edit

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

I am nominating this article for deletion, as it was not released as a single, did not chart and received a lack of promotion in any form. They are some independent sources for the song, but they mostly focus on the leak which can easily be incorporated into the album article. K. Peake 07:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --K. Peake 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --K. Peake 07:37, 16 May 2021 (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/2021 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The song itself only has one source commenting on it, "HotNewHipHop". The Times of idea source only draws attention to the audio and posts lyrics. The rest could be included in album page as the nominator said. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per comments above. LOVI 33 12:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon -- If anything I'm surprised to learn there is a track on this album that did not chart anywhere. It is even less notable than the others that have been successfully nominated for deletion.--N Ø 14:05, 16 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dismukes 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. All RS relate specifically to his 2020 hiring as a supporting cast member on the U.S. television serial "Saturday Night Live" and are BLP 1E. Other references like earnthenecklace.com and capcitycomedy.com are not RS. He was a group nominee for an Emmy; while being nominated for an Emmy might infer notability, being part of a group of 82 people nominated (and not winning) one does not. A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR returns many results but entirely in non-RS or in RS offering only fleeting mentions such as episode credits during his handful of SNL appearances. May be WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure BLP1E applies to someone on a recurring TV show, which is not a single event. It's not clear to me whether Dismukes meets WP:ENTERTAINER but I do think we're likely to see more coverage of him after tonight's show, e.g. [1]. I did reach out to them to see if we could get a photo donated after they pointed it out on tonight's show so I don't plan on casting a vote. Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I know he writes and performs on SNL, an iconic sketch comedy show, but is this nomination a joke??! The very night he complains on his national television show that his article doesn't have a photo, suddenly that article gets nominated for deletion?! Obviously, someone was watching. Or is this just an attempt to get the article mentioned on national television again next week?!! Seriously, even a cursory Google search of his name under the News, lists articles featuring his name (within the last hour at the time of this writing alone), in Paste Magazine, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly and Deadline; and within the last week on MarketWatch, Consequence, New York Post, IndieWire, Vanity Fair, Daily Mail, The Globe and Mail and OK Magazine. Others recently include Yahoo News and US Weekly. That alone passes WP:BASIC and is indeed WP:GNG. Another commenter already correctly noted that WP:BLP1E applies to a single event, not a recurring tv show. Curiously, even the nominator notes that he was nominated for a Primetime Emmy. However, he was actually nominated for 2 Primetime Emmys: in both 2018 and 2019; as well as 2 Writers Guild Award nominations in 2019 and 2020. He also won a Special Jury Award at the Florida Film Festival for the short film "Call Me Brother" in 2018. Those honors certainly qualify under WP:ANYBIO and easily pass WP:ARTIST and WP:NACTOR, as does the fact that his article had to be semi-protected immediately following his televised comments. Subject has been a writer on SNL since 2018 and been a cast member in over two dozen episodes since 2020. He also continues to perform as an actor and stand-up comic in his own right. I could go on, but in the history of AfD's this one is easily the biggest no-brainer yet. Comedy itself is harder than this! Who are we trying to cancel next, Liz Cheney?! X4n6 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"certainly qualify under WP:ANYBIO and easily pass WP:ARTIST and WP:NACTOR" I'm sure the Florida Film Festival is a fun event, but I hardly think winning an award at it constitutes a "significant cultural monument" as prescribed by the inherent notability standards you cited. Chetsford (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article needs cleanup, not deletion. And the fact that he has been nominated for four awards (two Emmys, two Writers Guild) shows that he is clearly notable. Additionally, I don’t think one can consider his casting on SNL as a single event since it is a recurring show watched by millions. It’s not like he was hired for a one-off comedy special nor is it like he only made one appearance on the show. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And the fact that he has been nominated for four awards (two Emmys, two Writers Guild) shows that he is clearly notable." At the risk of sounding redundant, this - like many of the arguments here - is not an argument based in our policy as it exists today. (Aside from the fact that saying he was "nominated for an Emmy" when he was part of an 82-person group nomination is a little disingenuous.) Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He's a cast member and writer on SNL, and he's been nominated for various awards, including two Emmys. It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. Modern184 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"He's a cast member and writer on SNL" We don't currently have a policy that says cast members of SNL get Wikipedia articles for no other reason than they're a cast member on SNL. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 16.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:GNG. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. While all of those are about him joining the cast, he continues to get coverage for being a cast member, particularly because he wasn't thrilled about the Elon Musk thing. Not the best nom. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles you cited are from the same month and are coverage of his hiring, therefore, are covered by WP:BLP1E in the absence of any other in-depth coverage. I keep hearing that he's continuing to get coverage but, thus far, have seen no examples of said coverage beyond fleeting mentions in cast lists and episode summaries. When I ask for examples of all this in-depth coverage I'm met with an exasperated declaration "but he's a cast member of SNL!" Notability must be demonstrated, not simply decreed. Not the best !vote. Chetsford (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every episode gets media coverage, so he gets discussed whenever he appears. See recaps like [22]. WP:BLP1E also has three elements, of which the second is: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Clearly not the case here. Also, if showing GNG is a bad vote, then I'm happy if all my !votes are bad. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Saturday Night Live is the crown jewel of American comedy. Any cast member becomes notable just for being a member of that elite show. I therefore think that any person chosen to be a cast member on SNL satisfies criteria #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER (a unique contribution to a field of entertainment). Banana Republic (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Saturday Night Live is the crown jewel of American comedy. Any cast member becomes notable just for being a member of that elite show." This is not an argument based in our policy. As said repeatedly, we don't currently have a policy that says cast members of SNL get Wikipedia articles for no other reason than they're a cast member on SNL. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt at cherrypicking. Read the entire !vote. It is the basis for why I think he satisfies criteria #3 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Banana Republic (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #3 is that the entertainer "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Do you have an RS to support the idea that an actor who has appeared in a handful of minor roles on SNL in the last two months has, therefore, "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment?" Even the inherent notability criteria require demonstration in RS, not merely declaration as a matter of personal approval of the BLP's performing ability. Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for all above reasons. Sure, the article looks like a stub at first sight, but deleting it isn't the answer, active upkeep of the article is. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Closer: If the !voting were to end right now I would call this no consensus on the basis that no reasonable policy-based arguments to Keep have been advanced. For now, to avoid WP:DEADHORSEing this AfD, I'm going to unwatchlist it and stop replying as it doesn't seem likely any arguments other than "he's a cast member of SNL" or "he was part of a group that was nominated for an Emmy" are going to be proffered or are even possible. But please imagine I'm still in this AfD and am responding "this is not a policy based reason to Keep" to all subsequent iterations of this argument. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the notion that "no reasonable policy-based arguments to Keep have been advanced". Just because you don't agree with those arguments does not mean that they were not presented. Banana Republic (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There's no way you're to get a delete or redirect result on this...the subject is obviously notable as a cast member and writer on a very popular TV series and a deletion review re-open wasn't needed. No amount of 'but this (WP:)!' is going to change anyone's mind at this point. Nate • (chatter) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Dismukes is notable because he's a cast member on this venerable American show. There is no reasonable argument for Dismukes not being notable. He's a cast member and a writer on this sketch show, the amount of time he does or does not spend on screen has nothing to do with his notability. Jessamyn (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I'll bite, these are RS that I think support his notability. Stubs have been written about people with less. Jessamyn (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paste Magazine - establishes that he's been a writer on SNL for "a few years" and also goes on about his talent in the most recent show.

Emmy nomination - sure he's one of 30-ish writers but that's the nature of this show.

Texas Monthly - establishes more facts about Dismukes

Austin Statesman - numerous mentions about what he was up to in college

NBC.com - more facts about him

Fort Worth Star Telegram - short Texas-local article about when he was hired

Snow keep. Is this a joke? Ample coverage exists for GNG. This looks like we are punishing him for mentioning that he didn't have a photo on his article on SNL. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to take this ill advised AfD nomination out of its misery, but was severely chastised for it, even though the reviewers did not necessarily approve of the wisdom of this nomination. This disruptive AfD will therefore have to stay open for an entire week.

Ironically, Wikipedia claims to not be a bureaucracy. As my experience shows, this is obviously just a motto, not reality.

Banana Republic (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This seems silly. There is only one SNL cast member in the history of the show who doesn't have their own page, and that is featured player Dan Vitale, who was on the show for only three episodes in 1985. Dismukes has been a writer for several seasons, during which the show was nominated for an Emmy, and is now a featured player who has already been in more than three episodes. Yes, I'm partially making an argument from "What about article x?", which is not entirely professional, but the fact that a deletion page was created for this article the morning after Dismukes mentioned his Wikipedia article on Weekend Update has made the whole discussion unprofessional. JaneOstensible (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep almost every SNL actor has a Wikipedia article, especially ones who also write on the show for 3 seasons. Clearly notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I was so astonished that this page is marked for deletion that I went to the trouble to figure out how to add my comments here. Sorry if I did it wrong, but of course he deserves an article. I know the rules say to assume the person who flagged this article for deletion acted in good faith, but I'm finding it difficult to extend the benefit of the doubt here. I believe this person either is a troll or doesn't know much about U.S. television. A quick Google search turns up plenty of media coverage, for example, the article I've cited here.

[23]2601:244:8400:8640:3016:8D5B:1B8D:EF1A (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is actually a system admin on Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are per everybody else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:48, 19 May 2021 (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. Closing early based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enytially edit

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

Fail of WP:GNG. As per WP:LISTED there is no consensus that being listed on a stock exchange automatically denotes notability. nearlyevil 665 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. GermanKity (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources available in a Google search. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree doesn't meet WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being listed is not a qualifier for notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A constituent of BSE SENSEX and NIFTY 50 would be notable, but I couldn't verify it, or find a listing on either of the exchanges. Peter James (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Pun Magar edit

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

Unsuccessful political candidate so fails WP:NPOL. I can't find any evidence of passing WP:GNG in a search of his Nepali name and none of the references in the article show significant coverage other than the ones from non-independent or self-published sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails WP:POLITICIAN. GermanKity (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any RS for this, all social media. Fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - most of the source are primary. One mention in tv news can be counted as a coverage, however there is no multiple sources to verify it. At such situation, draftifying would be the right thing to do. nirmal (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What improvement could possibly take place in Draft to an article that so clearly fails WP:NPOL? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: -Good observation. I agree, draftifying seldom improves the article unless the major contributor actively takes part in the deletion discussion. In this particular case, as I mentioned earlier, among the references, 1 and 2 indicates he has some coverage in media. Obviously it needs to be translated from Nepali to english, so anyone can understand those documents. Draftifying will give the major editors some time to improve the references, possibly a chance to add English references too. Regards! nirmal (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify according to refs indicate he is a politician of Nepal. All the refs are in the Nepali language, however, there are multiple problems in article writing Like unmanaged refs list, bio in one paragraph. Draftifying is the right place to improve refs listing and article writing. Parbat Katwal (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the references actually show significant coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Draftification is for topics with potential merit. No amount of editing can make a non-notable topic notable. So, draftification is out of question for this topic. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:18, 22 May 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Solomon (rabbi) edit

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

Fails NPROF. His Scopus has little citations. Not found an RS elsewhere. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His Google Scholar profile looks respectable enough for the field, and it's easy to find discussions of his books, both the popular introductions and the more scholarly works. There's also a profile of him in Algemeiner Journal at [24]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable: has a UK Who's Who entry [25]https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U35616 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant Rabbi.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2021 (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. czar 20:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Berkowitz edit

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

Non-notable rabbi. BLP with no RS. Mentioned in passing in one of the external links, the two others are primary sources. Not found anything else relevant online. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee her inclusion in Wikipedia just because pieces of her own writing about other things can be found to verify that she exists — the notability test does not hinge on the ability to verify that she's been the author of content about other things so much as it does the ability to verify that she's been the subject of media coverage written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric G. Kirsch edit

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

Non-notable military officer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO; a WP:BEFORE search yields no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear failure of GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary for WP:GNG. Created by an SPA. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Vezina edit

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

Rolling the dice and taking my chances... Hugely promotional piece of peacockery (written by a paid editor, and it shows!) on a person of at best borderline notability. There are sources, yes, but lest we forget, even solid sources (and I'm not saying these are necessarily solid, even if they are many) only raise the presumption of notability; they don't guarantee it. Given that AfD is not cleanup, I did first think of cutting out all the promo fluff and trimming this down to its essence only, but TBH I'm not sure quite what if anything would remain. Fails WP:BIO, and in my view fails also WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with impunity. I'd never heard of him before, but many of the things mentioned in the article are local and familiar. He's a successful local businessman with some local newspaper coverage. There's nothing notable here by our standards. The accomplishments are nothing spectacular. The puffery, on the other hand is spectacular. I think the very highest standard of notability has to be applied here, as he's a former PR professional, presumably with access to people who publish sources. All coverage seems to be either local or not independent, and all quite banal. --- Possibly (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this for notability having read it three times to try and identify what exactly would make the subject notable. I’m still not clear. The article looks like PR based on sources which are also based on PR. The subject has a successful career in pr and event management but there’s really nothing here to warrant a bio article. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's a roll of a six-sided set of sixes, right there. Fails GNG, may even pass G11. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person's accomplishments do not make him notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
discussion Is it absolutely necessary to be so unpleasant ? I have copy-pasted here this traduction of the French article thinking that the admissibility was similar (at least 2 national centered sources on at least 2 differents years). La Presse and The Gazette are considered as national sources on the French Wikipedia.
I understand that each Wikipedia have their own rules and I'll accept your jugement here, but there's pillars and I am especting that you'll respect the fourth one. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone being unpleasant above. Perhaps you're viewing their comments on the subject and article through the lens of your COI? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me? Hugely promotional piece of peacockery (written by a paid editor, and it shows!), The accomplishments are nothing spectacular. The puffery, on the other hand is spectacular. , G11. Don't need COI glasses to smell all the contempt here, even with my bad English. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, when you embark upon writing, for money, promo pieces on people of questionable notability, you really ought to expect some fairly robust pushback; don't you think? Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

promo pieces on people of questionable notability that is your PoV.
As I said, I think that there's a lot of good sources about this person. If you can't assume good faith and just want to see that I'm a paid editor writing a piece of promo, even if I have created thousands of bio and I've been paid for about 5 of them, it is your choice. Personnaly, I think that it is you who have anti-paid-editing glasses, that you can't make the difference between a promo and a bio where all informations are no more and no less than facts sourced by independant sources. Yes, it didn't put in light the failures of the personnality, but if someone want to add them with independant sources, nobody will fight it. But this is also a PoV.
The problem here is your denigration of my work. It don't respect one of the pillars of the project. It create a straw man of my work and me and divert the discussion on feelings and not on facts. We can't juge an article with things like "I've never heard of him before".
I think that the mains questions are : "do there's good sources about this person and do the article use them correctly". Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would kindly ask that you do not start with personal attacks. Despite what you seem to think, the comments so far have been aimed at the article subject or the way it has been written; you are now starting to attack other editors (while pleading civility yourself), which is not acceptable.

Secondly, your assessment of the quality of the sources cited clearly differs from those of the majority here. Perhaps instead of accusing me and/or others of POV, it might help to take a look in the mirror and ask why that is?

Thirdly, whether you have written 'thousands' of bios isn't what is being considered (not yet, at least); we are discussing this particular bio. To say that you have visited a bank branch thousands of times without incident doesn't really ameliorate the fact on one of your recent visits you decided to rob the place. And for someone to point that out isn't the offence here, so appealing to one of the 'pillars' is unlikely to suffice as defence.

PS: Incidentally, you say you have been paid for five bios. I have previously asked you on your talk page to disclose any COI, and Possibly expressly asked if you have been paid for any other articles than this. I note that you have not responded to either question. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece on non-notable figure Dexxtrall (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number", so he isn't automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because the article has the words "La Presse" and "Montreal Gazette" in it — we also test the sources for things like (a) the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him and (b) the context of what they're covering him for, and not every possible source is of equal GNG-building value. Glancing namechecks of his existence in sources whose core subject is something else do not help to establish his notability; "social notes" columns do not help to establish his notability; local coverage of him in local interest contexts, such as organizing local events or winning minor local awards, does not secure his notability; and on and so forth.
Secondly, please read WP:WAX if you think "it's a straight translation of an article that already exists on the French Wikipedia" is a reason why the article needs to be kept — especially since the maker of that argument was also the creator of the article on the French Wikipedia, and even the French Wikipedia's inclusion standards, while not completely identical to the English Wikipedia's inclusion standards across the board, are still much, much stricter than "anybody who's gotten their name into any newspaper twice", so the article may not necessarily have genuinely passed their inclusion standards either.
Nothing stated in the article passes any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria, and even just basic GNG is considerably more complex, and takes a lot more factors into account, than just "article has 17 footnotes in it". Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that GNG is to count footnotes ? That enwiki criteria are the same than frwiki ? That the article is on French Wikipedia and must be keept here because of that?
I didn't say that all the article sources are centered on him, just that there's at least 2 national sources centered on him on 2 differents years (Petrowski and the one of Campbell about BBCM) and that this is a general criteria of notability on French Wikipedia for bio. I have thought it was similar here and it seems I was wrong.
This will be my last post. I know too much that kind of discussion. Your idea is made and anything I'll say wouldn't change it. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 11:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Amoaa edit

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

While the sourcing has improved quite a lot since last year and so this isn't quite a speedily deletable repost, I am however not convinced that WP:BIO is met here (we have her medical condition plus some recognition for her activism, but I couldn't even verify her education). Would like to hear more opinions, so sending to AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Norm. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JaredDaEconomist: I'm not certain that this should be deleted, so could you elaborate why you think this should be deleted? —Kusma (t·c) 17:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why wouldn't Pulse Ghana, Ghana news, and Modern Ghana count as Reliable sources? Furius (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: I'm assuming they are reliable in absence of evidence to the contrary (I'm hoping that editors with more knowledge of Ghana will comment). But being mentioned in reliable sources isn't the same as notability. —Kusma (t·c) 18:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is quite notable here in Ghana. Iamknightrae (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the sourcing, the subject fits the notability guideline and is considered a celebrity. Mellowdeaous (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is a very notable person here in Ghana. She has been on talk shows and national television with her mission. Iamknightrae (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the references, the subject fits the notability guidelines. However, the article needs to be written better.Applehead1000 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (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/2021 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I am not an expert about Ghana related topics, but some sigcov were found about the subject like [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Among these, at least Vanguard, health.com, thecitizen.co.tz are reliable. Chirota (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GMA News Roundup edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Chirota (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SBKSPP. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The World Today (Philippine TV program) edit

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

Fail WP:GNG, WP:TVSHOW. Abrilando232 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Abrilando232 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed Abrilando232 blanked several pages and replaced them with a redirect link, before waiting for a consensus. Please don't do that again. Thats why deletion/merge proposals exist in the first place.TheHotwiki (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Noted, I agreed to stop blanked. but first of all, you need to AfD decided deleted, redirect or not. Abrilando232 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Abrilando232: What are you talking about? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nuke) this and all other stubbish Philippine news TV program articles, most especially if tagged as unsourced since more than a decade ago. This one in particular has been tagged as unsourced since March 2009. Notability is not established by just common mentions or rumors from the people, but by proof of independent sources. As this was a program by RBS (now GMA-7), GMA News or GMA Network sources are not reliable (as non-independent). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by GMA Network Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SBKSPP. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:07, 22 May 2021 (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 00:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lonsdale edit

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

Hedge fund executive businessman does not meet WP:NBIO. Lots of sources, but none of the roles establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lonsdale has founded several multibillion dollar companies, profiled by Forbes, Business Insider, WSJ, etc. Clearly meets WP:NBIO. Given your persistent attempts to delete this article under different rationals, you likely have a COI and should recuse yourself from the discussion under WP:COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portola2018 (talk

Page should not be deleted. Third-party sources from page show Joseph Lonsdale meets WP:NBIO. Examples: https://www.forbes.com/profile/joe-lonsdale/?sh=13a89900128d, http://siliconhillsnews.com/2021/01/07/joe-lonsdale-wants-to-build-a-new-tech-city-near-austin-and-a-tunnel-transportation-system-to-develop-an-even-bigger-tech-hub/, https://www.businessinsider.com/paypal-mafia-members-careers-elon-musk-peter-thiel-reid-hoffman-2019-11#there-are-several-more-former-paypal-employees-who-went-on-to-have-careers-both-in-and-out-of-technology-29. Telluride1993 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Vote for no deletion. Joe Lonsdale is discussed frequently as a major entrepreneur and investor in noteworthy publications (including those cited). He is WP:NBIO Navigator1492 21:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Blocked socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Navigator1492. MER-C 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be deleted. Joe Lonsdale is a notable investor and entrepreneur. His inclusion in Forbes' Midas list 5 years in a row, including being the youngest member to achieve this title in 2016, clearly places him in a position of notoriety under WP:ANYBIO --Bugmango (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted. A simple google news search returns thousands of hits from notable third party sources where Joe Lonsdale is either quoted or written about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckeye442 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- More blocked Navigator1492 socks. Cabayi (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. If you were in doubt as to whether this is a bad-faith article, see the sock/meatpuppetry above. Behavior like this must not be rewarded. MER-C 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagal (name) edit

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

Non-notable clan, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a suitable list; otherwise delete Lembit Staan (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No suitable article to merge/redirect and there are no notable people by the name. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed GNG. Darktaste (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage to pass GNG; mo obvious redirect target either. ——Serial 12:54, 24 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Sharma edit

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

Non-notable actor. The article should speak for itself, but does not provide evidence of acting notability or general notability. The listed roles are not listed as major roles. The article states that the subject is noted for Mirzapur, but the article on Mirzapur does not list Anjum Sharma. The references listed are interviews.

	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	Hindustan Times interview	Independent source, not independent coverage
2	Indian Express interview	Independent source, not independent coverage
3	MissMalini.com, a gossip sheet	Interview	No

Created in both article space and draft space, whether out of impatience or to game the system, so article cannot be moved to draft space. Creator of draft has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: As per nom. Nothing useful were also no found on doing a WP:Before. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:Striking my delete vote and changing to Keep as per WP:Hey. Its true I was able to find nothing on my WP:Before. I discussed this concern with Vincentvikram and decided to change my vote as he provided good sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kashmorwiki but the condition is not WP:HEY as no improvement was done in this case. It is a simple case of improper BEFORE. Best! VV 15:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The actor is mentioned in the IMDB page of Mirzapur. The source table is *faulty* as the articles in Hindustan Times and Indian Express focus completely on the subject which would be WP:SIGCOV. The actor made their debut in Slumdog Millionaire. The subject is also featured in DNA India, News18. Nom, being an experienced editor needs to do a better WP:BEFORE than this. VV 15:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:IMDB.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 12:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware that IMDB does not create notability. I have also linked two more sources in my reply that show notability. Plus the two sources linked in the table are actually WP:SIGCOV. So a minimum four are here itself to satisfy a keep criteria. VV 06:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting, for more sourcing to be presented in the article. After that I will vote.🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 12:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Locomotive207 did you have a look at the DNA India and News18 sources in my comment? Thanks! VV 11:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any of those sources coming up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "After playing a miniscule role in "Slumdog Millionaire"... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexandermcnabb could you have a look at the two sources I have linked in my comment above. Thanks! VV 10:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom. GermanKity (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Alexandermcnabb intimates, after playing a tiny role in one notable film, has proceeded to do bugger-all notablity-wise since. Fails WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 12:56, 24 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Players edit

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

Non-notable local theater / business. No significant history, widespread coverage, or events. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't even cite any sources. Run of the mill local theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in the article. WP:BEFORE just turns up a few mentions about their performances in local papers but nothing more than WP:ROUTINE for local theater. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Hypogaearoots (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2021 (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. A strong consensus has formed that this subject does not warrant a separate article. The value of a redirect at this title has been challenged, so going with delete for closing this discussion. A redirect can be created (and taken to WP:RFD) if desired through the normal editing process. Hog Farm _Talk 03:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Shore (Lake Superior) edit

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

This does not meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. Yes, Lake Superior, like all lakes has a southern shore, but I see nothing that either makes this an official designation or a commonly used name. Rusf10 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Granted, it is less well know than its northern counterpart, but it is certainly used in the region to differentiate between the Michigan/Wisconsin side of the lake and the Minnesota/Ontario side. A quick internet search of "south shore lake superior" brings up numerous instances of the term which easily meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dolotta:Please provide some sources so we can evaluate them. Yes, a Google search gets some hits, but I don't see anything that establishes notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw these search results too, but it's nothing compared to Minnesota as a recognized region. Better covered in Lake Superior, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, etc. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such region or area defined as "South Shore" in the state of Michigan. It is merely the southern shore of Lake Superior and has no significance. —Notorious4life (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - If anything is mergable, please merge and redirect to Lake Superior. Always nice to avoid deletion if we can. Missvain (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I oppose this. South Shore is not an actual term that is used anywhere and there's really nothing to save from this article, its just a list of places that someone has deemed to be scenic.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: It is an actual term that is well used in the part of Lake Superior from the Twin Ports to the Apostle Islands as you can tell from a Google search. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to actually provide the sources. I've done a Google search and have found no legitimate sources that use the term.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lake Superior; as the kids nowadays say, this seems to be "literally not even, like, a thing". jp×g 06:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per JPxG. It is a non-notable shoreline, and I'm kinda impressed it has been up since 2007. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't understand the need for a redirect when its not a actual term that is used in sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Rusf10. The term "South Shore" is never used anywhere, and the redirect would be pointless. If someone searches for "South Shore" and is redirected to Lake Superior, it creates the illusion that the term actually exists and has meaning. —Notorious4life (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— the term has previously been in use before as part of the Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railway, a railroad in operation from 1855 to 1960. Imzadi 1979 → 04:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sympathetic as I am—per WP:ATD—towards suggestions of merging, I also see a redirect to a page where the topic is unmentioned as wholly WP:EGGy and doing a disservice to the WP:READER. ——Serial 12:59, 24 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Simple Songs edit

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

While the subscriber rate is high, there is no demonstrated notability for said youtube channel. nearlyevil 665 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have just added a ref which I think confirms notability. PamD 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could for sure use cleanup and sourcing improvements but I do believe this passes the notability threshold Sro23 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources on page are sufficient to establish notability, in particular the coverage in "Glamour" and "Music Business Worldwide." PianoDan (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. ——Serial 13:01, 24 May 2021 (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 ABS-CBN Corporation#Magandang Umaga, Pilipinas. (Relevant material also merged.) (non-admin closure) ——Serial 13:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magandang Umaga, Pilipinas edit

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

Fails WP:N and WP:GNG ----Rdp060707|talk 01:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 01:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ABS-CBN Corporation as an WP:Alternative to deletion. Yes, it exists - perhaps there are better sources that are non-English? At this point, I think merging and redirecting is the best option. Missvain (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its successor Umagang Kay Ganda: Barely found anything about the morning show aside from an article about it as "Alas Singko Y Medya". There may be other sources about it, but they're hard to find. That said, a redirect to its successor is the best way to go. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 23 May 2021 (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 00:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Value grid edit

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

It's a thing two people proposed in a thing they wrote a few months before this article was written. Coin945 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator also added this text to Value Chain:--Coin945 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Further Developments in Value Chain Research

More recently, the term value grid has been developed to highlight the fact that competitiion in the value chain has been shifting away from the strict linear view defined by the traditional 'value chain' model (Pil and Holweg, 2006).

The value chain in its original sense was defined as a sequence of value-enhancing activities. In its simplest form, raw materials are formed into components, which are assembled into final products, distributed, sold, and serviced. Frequently, the activities span multiple organizations. This orderly progression of activities allows managers to formulate profitable strategies and coordinate operations.

However, it can also put a stranglehold on innovation at a time when the greatest opportunities for value creation (and the most significant threats to long-term survival) often originate outside the traditional, linear view. Traditional value chains may have worked well in landline telecommunications and automobile production during the last century, but today innovation comes in many shapes and sizes—and often unexpectedly.

Pil and Holweg hence argue for seeing value creation as multidirectional rather than linear. Given the constant tension between opportunity and threat, firms need to explore opportunities for managing risks, gaining additional influence over customer demand, and generating new ways to create customer value. Nokia, for example, is legendary for having the foresight to lock in critical components that were in short supply, allowing it to achieve significant market share growth. However, a few years ago it suffered a setback when competitors used the same strategy to take advantage of shifts in the demand for LCD displays.

Protection against such fickle reversals calls for a more complex view of value—one that is based on a grid as opposed to the traditional chain. The grid approach allows firms to move beyond immediately recognizable opportunities and across industry lines. This permits managers to identify where other companies—perhaps even those engaged in entirely different value chains—obtain value, line up critical resources, or influence customer demand. The new paths can be vertical; horizontal; and even diagonal. Successful managers need to learn how to assemble multi-faceted value grids that leverage new opportunities and respond to new threats."

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant news coverage. Peter303x (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is effectively WP:OR. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. The article is now located at Draft:Grey Elephant where it can continue to be worked on until it meets WP:NFILM. Anarchyte (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Elephant edit

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

Non-notable future film, only one article is covering the topic in detail, is only mentioned in passing elsewhere, does not have significant coverage by independent sources per WP:GNG, should be moved to draft space until more sources come to light BOVINEBOY2008 00:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, currently fails WP:NFF but may be notable in the future. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I'm ok with that as purposed by Donaldd23 per an WP:Alternative to deletion. No new sourcing has appeared since October 2020 regarding the film, but, production can be slow. Content with drafting for now. Missvain (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carnation Auto edit

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

Unambiguous Advertisement. References do not show significant coverage in reliable sources. Based on Routine coverage and Press Releases. DJRSD (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing a car dealer firm, supported by announcement-based coverage. I have added brief coverage of Mahindra First Choice's acquisition of this brand from the liquidator in 2018. Perhaps the residual brand could be added to the bullet-point list at Mahindra_Group#Major_business_ventures, though it would be two levels down so maybe undue prominence. I don't think there is enough coverage for the current WP:NCORP criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG lacks indepth sources. Hypogaearoots (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete car dealership. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Core Group edit

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

Advertisement of the company. Do not show significant coverage with in-depth information on the company DJRSD (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP lacks indepth sources. Hypogaearoots (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, creation by suspected UPE, also see Deepak Loomba article by same editor. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Poet Laureate edit

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

Local poet, poet laureate of a city. All references are from the immediate area DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how is this even a thing? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a notable thing. Just because a city decides to declare someone "poet laureatt", and the local newspapers fill some space with an article about it does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2021 (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 Front End Loader. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 12:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossibles (Australian band) edit

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced and promotional. I can't find any significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and I can't find any sources for general notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any coverage about this band, no songs in charts. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND.Less Unless (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passess WP:BAND. Otherwise Redirect to Front End Loader (notable band of lead singer) as an alternative to deletion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Still fails WP:BAND, as two of the three added citations are just database entries, and the other source is not primarily about the band and not independent (written by a band member). The Impossibles are not currently mentioned at Front End Loader, but if a mention is added there I wouldn't object to redirecting. Lennart97 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added more content and refs to the article. If you believe it still fails WP:BAND, I also added a ¶ at FEL about this side project. I prefer to Keep but Redirect is better than delete.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, I do not see that the added info adds WP:RS in support of notability, so I will stick with my !vote (to delete) earlier. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. I did a little search. I could not find additional in-depth coverage to support WP:GNG. --Kemalcan (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Gyan edit

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

A promotionally worded article about a "research initiative" by DK Hari and Hema Hari, whose output consists of books and other media.

It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG: the only independent source I could find was this article in the The Hindu. There are a few profiles on platforms where they publish (the most substantial one I could find was www.artofliving.org/in-en/bharathgyan – sorry, site is blacklisted) or on the web page of an unaccredited university where one of the founders is a teacher [32], a report on a presentation made by the founders [33], and another report about a book published by them [34]. The article also cites a 2007 newspaper article titled India in the eyes of Bharathgyan, but that's not available online, and even if we count it there won't be enough in-depth coverage overall.

Unless appearances are deceiving (some of the refs used in the article have it that Bhararth Gyan have determined Rama's birth to be 5114 BC, and have traced the origin of the Maya calendar to India), then we absolutely can't have an article about what looks like purveyors of pseudo-history without something reliable to say about them. – Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The occurances of the title are in promotional mentions related to the founders. No WP:SIGCOV based on a WP:BEFORE. VV 04:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Promotional, not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly passing mentions, not broad coverage in RS.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:27, 16 May 2021 (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. Sandstein 20:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Smal edit

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

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT as the subject is still in F4. nearlyevil 665 14:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be an article about some random kid. If this wasn't a WP:BLP of a child I'd be far more neutral on the matter. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2021 (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. Sandstein 20:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sartaaj Kakkar edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. References that look like secondary sources actually read like veiled promotional pieces about the subject and do not look reliable. nearlyevil 665 13:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the sources on google news section . The reason behind creating this article is i saw him on many movies and advertisements and did some research and thought someone who've played movies and many ads must be notable . Khagendrawiki (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Please keep He has played many movies some of them are really big hits like Tiger Zinda Hai , Judwaa 2 and aslo played many commercial ads which are played on television.Khagendrawiki (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't he qualify for WP:NACTOR criteria #1 has had significant roles in notable films Tiger Zinda Hai, Judwaa 2, Mard Ko Dard Nahi Hota. 06:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Reply: He hasn't had significant roles. nearlyevil 665 06:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NACTOR, no evidence of playing significant roles in the aforementioned films. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This young actor does not qualify under GNG or ACTOR. I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for him to have an article. Missvain (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The page was also listed for deletion at the Simple English Wikipedia (simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Sartaaj Kakkar). Given that we are talking about a 12-year old, who starred in 1-2 movies perhaps, I thought it was better to protect the child, and deleted the article there. This is just a piece of information, I don't want to influence your discussion here.Eptalon (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Kamal Foundation edit

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

The previous AFD resulted in soft deletion due to minimal participation, following which the article author requested a WP:REFUND. The article still relies entirely on sponsored coverage and unreliable sources, with no indication of passing GNG or NORG. See also UPE sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif Kamal (2nd nomination) and deletion/salt log at Asif Kamal. M4DU7 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find a spate of similarly-worded announcement-based items in August 2020, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH. Aside from that coverage there are articles about the founder, but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate that this organisation has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to mention a few important points here with not arguing on above delete comment on the announcement in august 2020, that announcement clearly mentioned that it was for a charity exhibition for the Government of Bihar and it was a press release and aside from that there is detailed information about this foundation in available attached links from ABP News, New Indian Express, jansatta.com, Gaon Connection, Zee News, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obergecsa (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Obergecsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passes WP:GNG Found two more articles of Zee News that help this page pass WP:GNG

https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/india/bihar-jharkhand/asif-kamaal-foundation-giving-ration-kit-to-needy-during-corona-lockdown-in-bihar/689956 https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/india/bihar-jharkhand/asif-kamal-foundation-come-forward-to-help-flood-affected-people-in-bihar/729637

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with AllyD. The depth of coverage in given source is not substantial but multiple independent sources can be combined to demonstrate notability as per WP:BASIC. The foundation has been covered by the multiple mainstream media agencies. The provided sources support the article and are plenty.Noyan b (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lack of third party independent sources fails WP:SIGCOV. /sniffs air: mmm, a hint of WP:PAID with a side of WP:MEAT. ——Serial 13:16, 24 May 2021 (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. All of the "keep" opinions don't address the argument for deletion that there are not sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. They certainly don't cite any sources. Sandstein 20:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roey Peleg edit

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

The first AfD was closed as no consensus, with the notation, "as many of the "keep" votes lack supporting evidence or a foundation in policy. However, some do speak to the possibility of improvement with sources not presently found in the article. The absence of consensus does not spare this article from being renominated for deletion at a future point if additional reliable sources containing sufficiently in-depth coverage of the subject are not provided." 4 months after the first AfD was opened, and 3 months after it was closed, that sourcing has not been provided.Mccapra's original rationale of "BLP of a social activist who does not seem to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. I see passing mentions and quotes from him as a spokesperson but nothing to suggest that he as an individual has attracted the kind of interest that would demonstrate notability. May be too soon." Still holds. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing in the article hasn’t improved and my view hasn’t changed. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article teach that there is importance. Peleg is one of the leaders in the struggle and that has not changed. Peleg also won a prestigious sports competition--היידן (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Roi Peleg is known in Israel as one of the people leading the struggle against prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Protests against Benjamin Netanyahu. BAswim (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well-known, notable and sufficiently publicized political activist in Israel. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Peleg is a notable person in Israel, known as an activist and one of the leaders of the public struggle against prime minister Netanyahu. The article has an encyclopedic importance. Danny-w (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable person in Israel.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and once again, not one policy based argument among the keep !votes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sourcing is problematic, sources are passing mentions or don't even mention subject. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Elshot edit

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

Barely passes WP:NFOOTY, sources aren't great and I can't find any WP:GNG-qualifying coverage on him. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, played a couple of games when he was a youth player. Since retired. Does not meet GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost zero coverage outside of football database websites. The best that I could find was this announcement, which is nowhere near enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was a bencher and soon called it quits. That's what created exceptionally little interest for someone who technically passes WP:NFOOTY. gidonb (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NFOOTY does not establish notability and is ultimately dependent on GNG. Since there is zero evidence he passes GNG, the article should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As NFOOTY does not establish notability and is ultimately dependent on GNG. Hence, he doesn't passes GNG. Hypogaearoots (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. It is now located at Draft:Candy Land (upcoming film), at which the article can continue to be worked on until it meets WP:NFILM. Anarchyte (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Land (upcoming film) edit

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

Non-notable upcoming film, only coverage is about a single casting announcement, does not have significant coverage beyond that, per WP:NFF, should be moved to draft until topic receives more coverage BOVINEBOY2008 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon in the development phase to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."Kolma8 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:NFF also states that artices must state that principal photography has begun, which the article does. Regardless, I understand WP:GNG concerns. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFF does not state that if the film has begun principal photography, then it deserves an article. It is simply a prerequisite. BOVINEBOY2008 20:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of this, which is why I still express this position while still being a little skeptical. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that Variety Insight is not the same as Variety, and it does not meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:NFSOURCES. Even if using a low bar of WP:100Words, Variety Insight provides zero words of real prose reporting. It is a database for trade folks—independent and presumably reliable, but not significant. A valuable reference tool, though, for sure. -2pou (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In my view, NFF is not met since the production is not notable (no reporting on it), and the sourcing that pretty much says it exists does not fully meet WP:NFSOURCES. It can incubate in draft space until there is a release and some reviews, though, instead of deletion. -2pou (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, currently fails WP:NFF but may be notable in the future. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2021 (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. Sandstein 20:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation (university) edit

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

Article is a complete disaster. What the article describes is basically Fraternities and sororities in various countries. I've never heard the term "corporation" used to describe them before and not finding sources to back that up. We also have an article that is more appropriately named Student society. Finally, this article cannot stand because the members of the list oddly link to foreign language versions of Wikipedia. I do not support a redirect to another article because the term makes no sense. Rusf10 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is clearly original research and as the nominator says, there's already articles that are not OR that cover the same exact thing in a non-miss leading way. Plus, a lot of the links being to foreign language articles is an issue. I'm not sure how you can remedy the issues and still have a usable, appropriate article either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move The criticism here is over-done. This is a useful list, and perhaps might be recategorized as a List-class article. To justify tossing it out because the author(s) gathered names of many such "corporations" into a single list would mean that ALL lists are original research. The value of this article is in bridging awareness of non-US fraternal clubs to an English-centric audience. Rusf10, you may not have heard use of the term "Corporation" in this sense. Me too: Before I began working on the Fraternities and Sororities Project I'd only been dimly aware of German university clubs and a few Puerto Rican or Philippine fraternities. The terms "Nations" or "Corporations" in this context was unknown to me, yet I've spent a couple of decades working with these groups here in the US and Canada. This article, and others like it, have helped me see the commonality between North American student groups versus those from other countries. To Adamant1's point, it's understandable there is a lack of English press about these groups. A pointer to a global reference is allowable - again, Wikipedia articles are often the starting point for a broader search. I vote to Keep this useful list. Jax MN (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep. We already have Student society which covers the topic internationally. I believe that's the proper term for this anyway. For Germany, we already have Studentenverbindung (which isn't exactly a great article either, although I wouldn't recommend deleting). If there is a particular group in another country that you believe is deserving of an article and can meet our WP:NORG guidelines then go ahead and create an article, but that doesn't justify keeping this disaster of a page.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less about non-english references. I was pretty clear that I was talking about linking non-English Wikipedia articles. Which isn't something that is generally acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Ones that are list articles or otherwise. Especially if they are mainly (or only) the articles being linked to. The point in lists is to help someone find more information about the topic. Which, it should go without saying, they either can't do or if the articles send them to are not in their native language. Again, it has nothing to do with references. At least those would be cited in the article in English. Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, in an article listing or introducing international fraternal groups and their lexicon ("Corporations", "Corps", and "Nations"), it's pretty obvious that links would be used that point to non-English Wikipedia articles. I don't see a problem with this. Many English speakers have an affinity for a second or third language. They're the ones who would be investigating fraternal groups in another language. N'est-ce pas?

Rusf10, outside of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Germany, there may not be enough of these societies to justify maintaining separate articles. I've looked at this issue through the lens of the Fraternity and Sorority Project watchlist, where we keep an eye on some 1700 global fraternal groups. We've created subheaders for those three countries named plus the North American groups. We have a catch-all for student societies in other nations, which seems to work for us. I've already responded to the concern that this is WP:NORG - I don't think that claim is supportable. Nor do I think the page you are aiming to delete is a "disaster". There are so many others that ought to be dumped before this one. Again, it is a list. I'm mulling over the options here; Perhaps we could merge this content into the Student society page, but it would then dismiss the useful linkage to this valid definition of how the word "Corporation" is used in this context, globally. To delete it, because you've never heard of it, shows a bias that I don't assume you mean to display. I say we just leave it, after cleaning up the formatting. Jax MN (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but I'm not the only that made the complaint. On your comment that bias is why we don't think corporations are a thing in this context, the first link in the "External links" section is called "Academic corporations" in the article but then on the webpage it says "Academic Societies." From what I can tell the other external links don't call them corporations either. Even if they did, they seem to all be blogs or personal websites. So they aren't at all authorities.

I also picked a few random inter-Wiki links from the various lists. Either they didn't use the word "corporation" or when they did there wasn't a reference attached to it's usage. Except for ones that were primary and even then it was only a few times. Primary sources do not qualify as valid when it comes deciding if a term is actually thing though. So, there just isn't anything to back up your assertions. Except I guess that we are just suppose to take your word on it...Because experience or something. I'd also add it's extremely miss-leading to list things in an article about so called "corporations" that don't even refer themselves as such. Even more so if your going to claim other people are just being biased about it when they bring up the discrepancy. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your specific points, here, one must wrestle with translation and transliteration issues, and abbreviation. The use of "Nation(s)" appears to be prevalent in the Baltics and in Scandinavia, while "Corporation(s)" appear/s within the German groups, abbreviated as Korps. Substituting these words there now appears to be a host of fraternal groups throughout Europe, some quite old. Thus a useful aspect of this article, for North American readers, is to clarify that fraternities in Europe use these terms. Secondly, would you be less inclined to be a Deletionist on this matter, if we were to simply rename the article to be a list? After seeing the way the deletion vs. inclusion debate has ripped through Wikipedia for the past decade, I am convinced that keeping this content helps to encourage more writers, eventually better writing, and that the best policy when faced with an article we don't like is outlined here: Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, since wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. . This stance makes me an Inclusionist. We're not lacking for space, nor is there risk of confusion over this article. It just needs cleanup, and more sources. The rules regarding Deletion require competence and familiarity when judging a subject, and elaborate on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." To support this point, I will add comments for those closer to these groups who may be able to provide better references. I'll insert this on the Talk page. Let me know if you'd like the page to be moved into a List. Reasonable? Jax MN (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because despite your wall of test that only involved your personal opinion and a history of Wikipedia articles being deleted, you didn't provide a reliable source that contains and (or) explains this usage of the term corporation like I asked you to. Nor did you address my point about the references in the article and the blue links not even using the term. Sure, you can go on and on about how the term is used more in Germany Etc. Etc., but you still need to provide reliable sources saying so and the articles your linking to also have to use the word. Just changing the article into a list does not solve those things.

This isn't a thing of everyone here being a deletionist either. No more then it has anything to do with bias on our parts. It's odd that you keep deflecting to such things though instead of just providing the references that would prove this is an actual thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that. You must have sources to back up your claims. And just because Germany has a different name doesn't mean we create two articles for the same thing. This is especially true because this article is not exclusively about Germany. The logical thing to do would to be use an English term because this is English wikipedia. And while we're on the topic of language, let me just add one thing. Setting aside the fact that WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep, he notion that inline links to a foreign language version of wikipeida is somehow useful is incomprehensible. People who use this wikipedia speak English, so when they click on a link they expect to be taken to another page that is also in English. How is it of any use to them to be surprisingly taken to a page that they cannot read?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole article is misconceived. There might be material for articles about individual countries there. Rathfelder (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - This article is messy. Agree with talk might be good for different countries. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - multiple reasons. First, it seems to me that if we have an article at this title, it should be about the legal structure of a university (or possibly about training programs like Hamburger University). The title violates WP:CONCISE. Since the title is so unclear, it's impossible to locate sources; and as the article is unsourced, it's a clear failure of pillar policy WP:V. Again, since the subject is unclear, I can't see how a reasonable argument for notability could possibly be made. TNT is the only solution. 174.212.211.253 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this anonymous editor on the point that the title is unclear. Again, it should be moved into a name such as List of European Student Fraternities, with the word "Corporation" defined there as the European fraternal groups tend to use it (along with "Nations", "Societies", etc.), and I agree with everyone that the article needs citations, but these are easy to find. So I favor fixing it, instead of blowing it up. I've switched my vote (above) to Keep/Move. Jax MN (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term is not used in American English. Most of the article is unsourced, I am not certain what the term is supposed to mean exactly. The article seems to suggest that it refers to Nation (university), which is already a different article. There is also synthesis in suggesting that "Nations" are the same as American-style fraternities. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:14, 22 May 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yousuf Rahman edit

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

Nothing notable about him, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some coverage of him in the article and in a search for Yousuf Babu (his common name) I found this which is clear SIGCOV. I imagine there will be more in Bangladeshi and offline sources given he was quite a big player at the time for the emerging nation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Think my stance about not including cricketers who have not played at FC/LA/T20 level is well known, but concede what Rugbyfan22 has said. StickyWicket (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2021 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Clematis edit

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

Seems to be condos (although that's not clear from the article). Does not pass WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced since 2007!! Yes, a condo. I can only see promotional pieces about it and nothing to indicate any kind of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created back in 2007 and hasn't really been updated since then. No such estate or integrated development by this name currently exists – the closest I can find that matches the description in the article is Clementi Towers, which is co-located with Clementi Mall and linked to Clementi Bus Interchange and Clementi MRT Station. It's possible that this was a prior working name for the Clementi Towers project, but I can't find any indication for that. There's a nearby condominium called Parc Clematis but that was launched only in 2019. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:50, 16 May 2021 (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 Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VJV College of Technology edit

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

Non-notable business: only online presence appears to be a facebook page. No independent evidence that this is a degree-awarding institution. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the university's page at Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As everything about it clearly fails the notability guidelines. I don't think a redirect is needed either. Since it doesn't seem like a popular enough search term to warrant one. That said, redirecting would still be better then nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MrsSnoozyTurtle
Redirect to Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences as an WP:Alternative to deletion. (Great job finding that MrsSnoozyTurtle!) Missvain (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Johnson (video game developer) edit

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is largely focussing on the games rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - Kris Johnson is a video game pioneer who played a notable role in both the gaming industry and the technology/startup landscape within Utah. The article was intended to convey this information and was modeled after other biographies found on Wikipedia for similarly important industry personalities (e.g., Will Harvey). The article describes Mr. Johnson’s history and contains numerous citations, not to mention cross links to several other Wikipedia pages that mention him by name. He is a noteworthy figure in the gaming industry. Contrary to the reason cited for deletion, the article mostly contains information on his background and accomplishments, not just his game creations. The article only references the games and aside from a few high points does not describe them in detail as many have their own Wikipedia articles. According to Wikipedia’s notability (person) policy/page, the topic of a biography should be “worthy of notice” who is “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention.” For “creative professionals” like Johnson, a person “is likely to be notable” if “the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work” and such work has been the subject of multiple independent articles or reviews. Johnson’s body of work in the video game industry meets this criteria as can be seen in the dozens of published reviews cited in the Wikipedia articles for his games. His body of work renders him notable and deserving of an article. Thank you for your consideration. Sandpiper259 (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2021

Keep - Article seems to have appropriate references. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: Have you checked the sources? They are clearly not appropriate. IceWelder [✉] 09:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: References have been revised to include more citations directly linking Johnson to his companies and games, including his role as lead programmer. I could also cite digital copies of user manuals for certain games, which list Johnson as the programmer in the credits, but thus far have not done so as I haven’t seen this type of primary source used in articles for other game developers. Sandpiper259 (talk)19:00, 26 April 2021

Sandpiper259: Please be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an accepted argument in deletion discussions. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle: Thank you for the clarification. Reference has been added for award-winning game cited. Specifics for most of the other games listed have been left to their individual and linked Wiki articles as suggested was appropriate in your article deletion request. Regards, Sandpiper259 (talk) 08:10 27 April 2021

Delete per nom. Almost all sources (reliability concerns aside) do not even mention Johnson. In most cases, there is a random source that marginally talks about a topic (e.g. Animal Jam - Play Wild! mentioned in connection to an award) that is used to make a claim about Johnson (e.g. that he directed the game and a related one) although the source says no such thing. Consider this fragment: "In 1999, Johnson founded Cobalt Interactive to focus on the confluence of advertising, gaming, and education. Cobalt produced Cap’n Crunch’s Crunchling Adventure for Quaker Oats Company, which was enthusiastically received ..." - the cited sources are a user-written gameplay overview of the game mentioned and a CD rip of another game. Neither source mentions Johnson's role, Cobalt Interactive's founding year, or any sort of reception.

The only sources that actually discuss Johnson are Dreamcast Live and Retro Gamer. The former is an interview (so it does not add not notability) with questionable reliability that is mostly about the game Red Arena. Furthermore, the article cites this interview for claims it does not contains, e.g. that Johnson was born in New Jersey and grew up in various states - the interview says nothing in this regard. I couldn't verify some elements from the Retro Gamer sources either, such as that Johnson designed a game called Junkman in 1984. The majority of the Retro Gamer-sourced content is about Beyond Games rather than Johnson.

Boiling the article down to the content that is actually about Johnson (not his company or its games) and is verifiable would, at best, leave the single-digit number of sentences that he studied at the University of Utah and founded Beyond Games in 1991. I concur with the nomination that the article fails WP:NBIO (or WP:GNG in general) and should be deleted. The author, Sandpiper259, claims above that Johnson is a significant figure in the field but did not provide any reliable sources that verify this. IceWelder [✉] 09:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: As noted above, references have been expanded to better link Johnson to his work. The article has also been redacted and revised in an attempt to address issues raised in your discussion. Sandpiper259 (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2021

@Sandpiper259: A breakdown of the new sources:

The Salt Lake Tribune (1) – Interview with Johnson about Beyond Games; no coverage about him apart from his age
GameSpy – Company-provided overview for Beyond Games (primary source by proxy); Johnson is only name-dropped once
MMORPG.com – Unreliable source; interview; Johnson is only name-dropped once
Infinitgamer – Proxy of the Beyond Games Wikipedia article (tertiary source)
AtariAge – Game manual (primary source)
beyondgames.com – Company website (primary source)
VentureBeat – Johnson is only name-dropped once
The Salt Lake Tribune (2) – Johnson is only name-dropped once (twice if you include the image caption)

The points from my above analysis remain valid: There is no significant coverage of Johnson himself and the sources are inappropriately used for original research/synthesis. You added more sources, including unreliable ones, but the few that are reliable (SL Tribune and VentureBeat) only mention Johnson once or twice in connection to Beyond Games/Smart Bomb/WildWorks. They do not contain any coverage about him. The absolute number of name drops is irrelevant if no coverage about Johnson comes with them. IceWelder [✉] 16:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: In the gaming landscape, the sources cited are credible, including Mobygames which was added after your review. Regardless, the point of notability here is not fame and the number of press references (though he did warrant interviews and photographs in newspaper and magazine publications). In fact, being famous or popular is “secondary” to notability according to Wikipedia policy. Rather, Johnson’s article is premised on his body of work and the relevance of his games, which include award-winners and well-know franchises. As pointed out in my entry above, notability for creative professionals derives from the attention received in the form of articles and reviews for their works, not necessarily for articles specifically focused on the professionals themselves. Please see WP:NBIO. Johnson’s gameography certainly satisfies this requirement and the content and references in his Wiki article (including the Retro Gamer and Dreamcast pieces you discussed) show that he was the vital force behind these games and worthy of attention. Please see the linked Wiki articles on the games for more information. Sandpiper259 (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2021

MobyGames is not "credible", it is a database maintained by users. Many of the sources used are not credible, as detailed above. Please see WP:VG/RS for examples of known reliable sources. You are correct that 'fame' is secondary to notability, meaning that notability weighs higher. Based on the sources provided, Johnson lacks notability as there is barely any coverage about him. The interviews with him are always based around Beyond Games – who else would you interview for this but the founder/owner?

The games are not attributed to Johnson as an individual, rather to Beyond Games/WildWorks as a company. Winning awards from one or two publications is barely enough to justify an article for the product that won it (although these are usually notable by other means). One person behind such games does not inherit that notability (please also read WP:INHERIT as an explainer). You are now referring to WP:CREATIVE (presumably #3), but the reliable sources in the article fail to show that Johnson is known as a driving force for most (if any) of the games listed. The gameography is simply the combination of those of Beyond/WildWorks and Cobalt. Some of these games even credit him in a strictly business role. IceWelder [✉] 18:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: First, Wiki policy specifically says that notability for creative professionals can result from co-creations, which by definition exists with media forms like movies and video games. That said, three of Johnson’s most noted works in the article - Battle Wheels, Animal Jam, and Crunchling Adventure - have citations that explicitly reference Johnson as the creator or programmer - a user manual, a current CEO interview, and a newspaper article. As for your dismissive reference to the awards, please check the linked game articles for more details as they’re no longer cited specifically in this article. You’ll find that the awards, like the Google Play Award in 2017, are important ones to children’s games. Moreover, an Innovation Award bestowed by the Consumer Electronics Show, arguably the most influential electronics show in the world, is important. As for the interviews, you said it best: Johnson was the founder/owner. So, I’m not sure how you can say that he could fill this role and be the one best suited for interviews but not the one who was “a driving force for most (if any) of the games listed.” This seems inconsistent and unsupportable, especially when discussing a young programmer at his startup and when the interviews themselves delve into his personal background in gaming and programming. Sandpiper259 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2021

WP:CREATIVE #3:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

(emphasis added)

This 'major role' needs to be covered in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Interviews and game manuals are not independent, especially when the interview source is not reliable. The MMORPG source still does not refer to Johnson as the game director for Animal Jam (just as 'studio director' a/k/a CEO). Additionally, Johnson still needs to pass WP:GNG, which requires:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, ...

(emphasis added)

This is not the case. I remain with my above analysis; if the content improperly sourced or only relating to the company was removed, little content would actually remain. Since we're somewhat going in circles, I would rather wait for second opinions from other experienced users than discuss this further. IceWelder [✉] 20:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: Agreed regarding further community input. I believe that Johnson’s “major role” has been established given his position as CEO/Founder/Programmer in these companies and game titles. Likewise, his work has been covered by multiple independent articles and reviews. As for Studio Director, this is a title separate from CEO and akin to a film director - the pivotal creative and strategic force behind executing a production. Finally, the referenced articles/interviews are several and contain information about both Johnson’s games and background (some of which was removed pursuant to this discussion thread). I appreciate your input and hope it has resulted in a stronger article. Thank you for your comments. Sandpiper259 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2021

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per participant request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IceWelder's analysis is spot on. We're lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) specific to Johnson's career and influence. Interviews from otherwise unreliable sources have no bearing on notability discussions. I considered a redirect as an alternative to deletion but I don't think either one of the two linked companies is a better target than the other, especially since they have nothing to say about his role and have weak sourcing on their own. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 07:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seeing some name drops in articles that talk about the companies he works with, but there is a lack of significant coverage of him. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czar and Indy beetle: Your comments repeat those of Icewelder with dubious challenges to the source materials. Moreover, they do not address the topic of notability for creative professionals. As such, please see my comments above. Also, please consider reviewing the reference materials more thoroughly as I believe their contents and credibility have been mischaracterized. Sandpiper259 (talk) 08:00 04 May 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed and upheld IceWelder's analysis. It's hard to be more explicit than that. All notability guidelines are subordinate to (and shortcuts for) the general notability guideline (GNG). Since this is the best we can do with the sourcing, I don't see how we can support an actual article on this topic without relying on original research and weak sources. czar 01:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandpiper259: please note that arguing against every vote that disagrees with you might be considered WP:BLUDGEON, especially since you are the article's main author. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 16 May 2021 (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. After three full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired herein. Of note is that DGG removed a significant amount of content from the article that could be construed as consisting of fluff, public relations and superfluous information during the course of this discussion (diff). Despite this, the {{Advert}} template placed in June 2012 remains in place atop the article. While AfD is not cleanup, the in-depth discussion herein could potentially lend to further article improvements. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Knights edit

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not reliably sourced as passing WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they must be the subject of sufficient media coverage to establish their significance. But this is referenced overwhelmingly to primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of other affiliated organizations, media pieces that have the company's founder as a bylined author but not the subject, university student media, glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage about other things or people, and on and so forth. Out of 19 footnotes there's only one (#3, The Globe and Mail) that actually represents a mass media outlet writing and publishing third-party journalism about the company, and that's not enough. And even if it can actually be salvaged, it will have to be massively cleaned up for neutrality and structure, because a lot of the content isn't really appropriately written or formatted for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not strongly. While AFD isn't the place for clean-up, the promo tone is a valid concern and I'm a bit skeptical about this topic's notability. It's not quite as weak as the start of the nomination may have implied. GBooks indicates their work has been discussed in books and academic literature. A Google Scholar supports that search even more. I did find coverage of companies making their way onto a "Global 100" list Corporate Knights primarily runs, such as in The Guardian, The Fashion Law, this source, Food Business News, Monitor Daily, Fast Company, CNBC, Stockhouse, and the entire list has been discussed by The Toronto Star, the CEO magazine. Company itself also has been in Edie.net and for its other work, such as its study on the amount of Black CEOs being covered by the Toronto Star. It definitely shows the magazine has made a big name for its itself within the literature on ecological sustainability in companies, in the same Billboard has made a name for itself by being the official publisher on what is hot in popular music with its charts. However, that's not necessarily a lot of full in-depth coverage of the company itself, as a lot of the sources (although not all of it) are about the Global 100 chart. I don't know, maybe the article should be about Global 100 if most of the coverage relates the chart. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Effectively advertorial, very little by way of real notable coverage of the business itself Dexxtrall (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, lacks meaningful coverage to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Columns in the National Post:
  1. Corcoran, Terence (2005-04-30). "Corporate communism". National Post. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The columnist notes: "The following is a review of material published in the spring, 2005, issue of Corporate Knights, The Canadian Magazine for Responsible Business, distributed last week in The Globe and Mail." The negative review of the magazine concludes, "The magazine ends with the ranking of business schools on the basis of their promotion of corporate social responsibility and general ability to begin turning out thousands of corporate Che Gueveras to fill the ranks of modern corporate communism." The negative review drew a letter from Corporate Knights's editor:
    - Heaps, Toby A.A. (2005-05-16). "Trading places. Re: Corporate Communism, Terence Corcoran, April 30". National Post. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Newspapers.com.
      The letter notes: "Nowhere did Mr. Corcoran show his partisanship for a yesteryear more accutely than when he dismissed us as communists because we pointed the obvious: that today's large corporations are owned by the average canadian."
  2. Foster, Peter (2013-06-07). "Canada's 'greenest' executives". National Post. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The columnist notes: "Corporate Knights's ideology is exposed by its Animal Farm semantics. It dubs itself "the company for clean capitalism." Now children, let's see if you can work out what that makes any capitalism who doesn't reach, or submit to, the rankings? That's right, kiddies, they're dirty capitalists."
  3. Black, Conrad (2009-07-04). "Tired Lefties on Parade". National Post. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The columnist notes: "There fell solemnly from a recent Saturday edition of a Canadian newspaper a well-printed, stapled booklet of 50 pages, on magazine stock, called Corporate Knights. ... The magazine is a quarterly and has a staff of 25 named people, including interns, and didn't have much advertising."
2. Pal, Mahuya; Jenkins, J. Jacob (2014-04-14). "Reimagining Sustainability: An Interrogation of the Corporate Knights' Global 100". Environmental Communication. 8 (3): 388–405. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.906477. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  The abstract notes: "This study examines sustainability reports of the Corporate Knights' “Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies in the World” in order to examine if and how they have been affected by Arturo Escobar's original critique of sustainable development (SD)."
3. Mayer, Andre (2002-10-16). "Glossy offers new spin on business ethics". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  The article notes: "Corporate Knights -- a Canadian magazine highlighting responsibility in the business sector -- published its first issue in June, mere weeks before WorldCom Inc. announced it had fudged its 2001 earnings. ... Published quarterly, Corporate Knights has a circulation of 104,500 and is distributed for free through The Globe and Mail. Bulk copies are also sent to companies that request them. The magazine acquires almost all of its revenue from advertisements, the majority of which are for mutual fund companies specializing in SRI."
4. Steed, Judy (2006-09-10). "Thinking positively - Editor-activist Toby Heaps finds he would rather reward good corporate citizens than berate bad ones". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  The article notes: "So he started Corporate Knights: The Canadian Magazine for Responsible Business with a couple of buddies in 2002, and made a $20,000 profit on the first issue. How? With a brilliant concept: The 50 Best Corporate Citizens in Canada. The first step: to create the rankings and attract attention, which he did by asking the CEOs of the 100 largest companies in Canada to define corporate social responsibility in the 21st century. Most responded. ... With 100,000 copies of Corporate Knights distributed that June by the Globe and Mail (with full page ads from Alcan, Scotiabank, Biovail, Suncor, EnCana etc.), Heaps and his managing editor Paul Fengler stated in their first editorial: ..."
5. Orr, Barbara Ramsay (2003-06-06). "Dofasco makes best corporate citizen list". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  The article notes: "The winners are selected by Corporate Knights, a one-year-old quarterly publication circulating to some 104,000 business readers across Canada. ... Corporate Knights examined and ranked the performance of 100 companies based on seven criteria: community relations, international practices, product safety, business practices, corporate governance, employee relations and diversity."
6. Mellor, Clare (2008-04-25). "Region at green crossroad; Editor of Corporate Knights says there are 'huge opportunities' in N.S." The Chronicle Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-05-17. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  The article notes: "Mr. Heaps, who has degrees in economics and international development, started Corporate Knights in 2002. The quarterly magazine, which has a national circulation of about 100,000, is on a mission to make businesses more responsible and promote a sustainable economy. The magazine is mailed to all MPs, senators and the country's top 1,000 CEOs. A recent issue ranked Canada's 50 biggest greenhouse gas polluters, while another graded grocery stores on their sustainability."
7. Carbasho, Tracy (2010). Nike. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-59884-342-2. Retrieved 2021-05-17.
  The book notes: "Nike also earned a spot, along with 19 other U.S. companies, on the Global 100 list compiled in 2009 by Corporate Knights, Inc. and Innovest Strategic Value Advisers. [list of companies] The winning companies are recognized each year at the Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland." The book notes about Corporate Knights magazine: "This particular magazine, published by the Canadian-based Corporate Knights media company, has the largest circulation of any publication focused solely on responsible business." The book further notes: "The Global 100 project, launched in 2005, was initiated by Corporate Knights with research support from the New York-based investment advisory firm known as Innovest Strategic Advisors. ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Corporate Knights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these sources are actually about Corporate Knights in any non-trivial way; several just glancingly namecheck its existence in the process of being about something else, which is not a type of source that helps to establish the notability of Corporate Knights. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The appropriate SNG for corporations is WP:NCORP which places a higher standard of scrutiny on sources used to establish notability. Quoting the GNG, which has a less strict standard, does not mean the references meet the appropriate standard. Looking at the references above and applying NCORP shows not a single reference meets NCORP as follows:
- 1.1 from the National Post - the article is commenting on one issue of the magazine published by the company. It provides no in-depth information on the actual company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the letter commenting on the article likewise fails CORPDEPTH
- 1.2 from the National Post - the article discusses an award issued by the company and in particular, heavily criticizes the methodology underpinning the award. There is one part one paragraph that comments on the company's own ideology but nowhere else is the company itself discussed, it fails to provide in-depth information on the company and fails CORPDEPTH
- 1.3 from the National Post - the article, like 1.1 above, discusses one issue of the magazine and provides no in-depth info on the company itself, fails CORPDEPTH
- 2 from the "Environmental Communication" journal uses, as the basis for a study, the list of companies appearing the the topic companies' "Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies in the World" list. Fails CORPDEPTH
- 3 from the Globe and Mail provides some discussion and information on the company but the problem for me is that it is also clear that the journalist interviewed executives from the company. In some parts the information is provided in the article by way of quotations and in others, there are statements. One paragraph in particular provides in statement for information about how the company distributes their magazine and then later reverts to quotations. WP:ORGIND states that references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and I am not convinced that the author didn't get the information provided in statement form from the company or as part of the interview as the data is not attributable to a third party source. Therefore fails WP:ORGIND
- 4 from the Toronto Star is a profile on the co-founder, Toby A.A. Heaps. It does not provide information on this company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. But in my opinion, this article could be used to justify an article on Mr. Heaps (and perhaps some of the information in this article could be used in an article on Heaps)
- 5 is from Hamilton Spectator and discusses various companies that appears in the list of Canada's 50 best corporate citizens. It doesn't discuss the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- 6 is from the Chronicle Herald and is an interview with Mr. Heaps with a single generic paragraph describing the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- 7 is from a book on Nike where is comments on Nike's inclusion in one of this company's lists and also includes quotations from Heaps and information provided by the company, fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

There is not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability once you apply the correct and appropriate guidelines for companies/organizations. That said, I believe that Mr. Heaps would likely meet notability guidelines for a standalone article. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The material on the magazine can be used to show the notability of the publisher, (though of course no tthe other way around). Sometimes in situations like this we make the article primarily about the magazine, but the company does significant other things also. The National Post material taken as a whole represents continuing comprehensive coverage of the organization & its magazine. Rejecting it as a source for notability because no one part of their coverage deals with all aspects is looking at sourcing much too narrowly. A study of the lists they produce is a study of their work, and what companies as well a people are known for is their work, not their internal organization. The real problem with the article is the extreme promotional writing and name-dropping, and omission of the more negative conservative sources. (This is a classic case where an article attracts deletion because it is written in an outrageously excessive way, where a more modest article would not really be noticed). I have removed most of the excess. Adding the more critical sources and condensing further I leave to someone else. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying it is incorrect to reject a source because no one part deals with all aspects is precisely the way NCORP is written. If you want to have an article about the company, then the sourcing must be spot on. Whats really happening here is that the "Top 100" lists published by the magazine get attention - the companies mentioned love them, newspapers love them, etc. Saying that the publisher is therefore notable is a stretch and in my opinion, is precisely the type of promotional article we don't want. Just my 2c. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 22 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus Book Awards edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. I looked for additional sources and found only local newspaper articles and press releases about particular winners. Cheers, gnu 57 13:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 13:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether it can be said to fail the WP:GNG The Nautilus awards are favorably referred to at Belmont University's website https://news.belmont.edu/whitehouse-awarded-nautilus-award-for-afoot-and-lighthearted/ and Belmont has a fairly good ranking among universities https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/belmont-university-3479/overall-rankings Also, the awards are favorably referred to also by Springer https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/pressreleases?SGWID=0-11002-2-1419946-0 and Springer is a respected publisher (est. 1950) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Publishing And not least, the world's greatest publisher, Penguin Random House, refers to the Nautilus Awards when they promote their books, something the clearly wouldn't do if they did not consider them worthwhile: https://global.penguinrandomhouse.com/announcements/our-2016-nautilus-book-award-winners/ Cheers Cosimo d'Medici (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To elaborate on my last point from above, that Penguin Random House, the world's biggest publisher, has actively used the Nautilus Awards for promoting their books: https://global.penguinrandomhouse.com/announcements/our-2016-nautilus-book-award-winners/ Probably they did so for financial reasons, but still, had they felt the awards to be naught they wouldn't have made a list of 'their own' Nautilus Winners and displayed it on their website. And given that Penguin Random House easily is the world leader in book-publishing, that argument carries great weight. That said, the article definitely needs improvement, but, in my opinion, clearly not deletion Cosimo d'Medici (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For transparency's sake, Genericusername57 approached me in the past to ask about whether this award would be considered either notable or a vanity award. You can read my comments about that here. The basic gist is that the award has many of the hallmarks that the SFWA highlighted in their "Is this a vanity award?" article. However that said, whether or not this is a vanity award isn't really the important part, it's whether or not this has been covered in independent and reliable sources. The association with notable publishers doesn't really help give notability via association, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and TBH, most publishers and agents will encourage submission to various awards in order to increase sales. It doesn't matter what the award is, the fact is that having an award, any award, on a book cover helps sales. It's part of why vanity awards tend to have staying power, TBH. So the fact that this award has an association with a notable publisher doesn't really mean anything, nor does whether or not it's a vanity award. Neither of those will establish notability. (I'm not knocking what people have to do to get their book noticed - it's a tough market - but this association doesn't mean an award is notable.)

Now as far as coverage goes, there's very, very little out there. The coverage is either primary or it's local interest pieces. By primary I mean that they're stuff like press releases, publishers listing that their book won the award, the awards website, or the author making mention about the award on their site. Now with the local interest pieces, the issue with those is that these are typically done in the vein of "look at what someone in our area did, isn't that neat" and in some cases, are done because they were approached by the author or their publicist. Now while self-published sources are almost always unusable as sources, it's also fairly telling that the blogosphere isn't talking about this award either. There's also no sign of independent, secondary RS doing typical coverage such as listing the award winners, something that is fairly normal for notable awards. The fact that this doesn't seem to exist (outside of PR Web type deals) is pretty telling, particularly when you consider the dearth of other sourcing. To be frank, the only people that seem to be interested in covering this award are local papers and/or people/organizations with a strong COI since they stand to profit from mentioning that their product won an award.

At best this is a non-notable, relatively obscure legitimate award. At worst it's a non-notable, relatively obscure vanity award. Either way, it just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another evidence towards it being a NN award is that when it comes to the Kingsolver win for Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, there's almost nothing out there about the award win. There is some primary coverage from her alma mater, but really not much else. (Of note, I also searched using Newspapers.com and the general search terms of "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" and "Nautilus Award".) She may not be as wildly big a name as say, Stephen King or Toni Morrison, but she's someone who would be more likely to get non-primary, non-local coverage in the news. There's not really a whisper out there about this award when it comes to non-primary or non-local sourcing. Also of note is that the official website for the book doesn't even mention this award (performing a search using "site:animalvegetablemiracle.com Nautilus"), giving more credence to this being a non-notable award if even the recipient doesn't think to include it on the website promoting the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I also looked for the Chopra book as well. I saw that it was mentioned on PBS, however I noted that the page was written a bit like a press blurb. Sure enough, a search brought up the same text on multiple different sites. This means that it almost certainly wasn't PBS that wrote the content, rather it was most likely something written by a publicist that would have a vested interest in making Chopra look as good as possible (not that he needs it given how well known he is, mind you). So what we need are things not written by a publicist or other primary source. A search only brought up this mention in a press release or other primary sources. The lack of independent, secondary sourcing here is also fairly telling given that Chopra is even more of a well-known person than Kingsolver and there's still almost no buzz about this other than some weak coverage using press releases. Also like Kingsolver, I looked this up on Newspapers.com, using the search terms "Book of Secrets", "Chopra" and "Nautilus". For two notable authors, there was a very noticeable lack of coverage, which I see as further evidence towards the award being non-notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The website of the highly notable, world famous zen-master Thích Nhất Hạnh - a friend of Martin Luther King and an interviewee of Oprah Winfrey - presents Thay's book (Thích Nhất Hạnh is usually referred to by his nickname Thay) The Art of Living as being a Nautilus winner: https://plumvillage.org/articles/the-art-of-living-has-won-gold-for-the-nautilus-award/ For the notability of Thích Nhất Hạnh, check the Wikipedia article about him. So when his official website in Plum Village - Thích Nhất Hạnh both founded the Plum Village monastry and has lived there for the most of his life, but due to ill-health he is presently in Vietnam - proudly, so it clearly seems, refers to his book as a Nautilus winner as a notable thing, it should not be disregarded.

Also, the world's greatest online forum of readers, Goodreads, presents a list of the Nautilus winners on their website, e.g. here: https://www.goodreads.com/award/show/2014-nautilus-book-award. And NB Goodreads does not list every literary awards but only some of those they take to be notable. So by including the Nautilus awards in this esteemed company, Goodreads obviously consider them to be notable.

One ought not to look away from things that substatiate notability to be able to say: see, there is no notability... :) Cosimo d'Medici (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are sources I found about the Nautilus Book Awards. There is enough to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and possibly Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
1. Jewett, Lorraine (2017-05-29). "Nevada City chiropractor sees book earn recognition". The Union. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Mayfield’s work was a natural for the Nautilus Book Awards, which celebrate and recognize authors who address emerging themes and trends such as spiritual growth, conscious living, high-level wellness, and positive social change. Authors submit their entries in one of 40 categories. Each book is reviewed and finalists are forwarded to a panel of six judges, which selects gold and silver medal winners." The article further notes, "Nautilus Book award winners are honored annually at Book Expo America, the largest book trade show in North America and the second largest in the world."
2. "Taos News columnist wins book award". Taos News. 2018-05-24. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that Ellen Wood, a Taos News columnist, won her second Nautilus Book Award. The article notes, "In its 20th year, this international competition honors books that grow and expand the vision: to recognize and celebrate books for a better world."
3. "Columnist wins Gold Nautilus Book Award". Taos News. 2011-06-02. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that Ellen Wood, a local author and a Taos News columnist, received a Gold Nautilus Book Award. Other people who received a Gold Nautilus Book Award are Deepak Chopra, Carolyn Myss, Eckhart Tolle, and Marianne Williamson. The awards were held in New York City in 2011. The article discusses what the awards are given for and how the winners are chosen.
Cunard (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: One of these is "local guy wins this award" and both of the other two are a newspaper reporting that one of its employees won this award. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~.

Just some relevant and notable sources, found easily and quicly:

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), one of the world's most notable universities: UCLA in their presentation of their writing programs, employ the Nautilus awards - obviously as a badge of honor - for one of their Spotlight books, Susannah Rodriguez Drissi’s “Until We’re Fish”: https://wp.ucla.edu/category/wp/spotlight/

The BBC, notable main stream media: BBC uses 'Nautilus Book Award Winners' as heading for programs about some famous recipients of the award: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/topics/Nautilus_Book_Award_winners

The Huffington Post, notable main stream media, evt. see the Wikipedia article about the paper/blog: Several regular contributors to HuffPost refer to their Nautilus in their CVs. Among others, Jeffrey Small https://www.huffpost.com/author/jeffrey-small Mark Nepo: https://www.huffpost.com/author/mark-nepo Ali Eteraz https://www.huffpost.com/author/ali-eteraz Dean Sluyter https://www.huffpost.com/author/dean-sluyter Press the 'Show full bio' button where the Nautilus reference does not appear at first glance

The New Yorker: Sarah Stillman, PhD in philosophy from Oxford, one of the world's top 5 universities, is staff writer at The New Yorker, one of the world's most notable literary newspapers. Stillmann quotes her Nautilus award (Soul Searching: A Girl’s Guide to Finding Herself, Simon & Schuster, 2000, 2012) in her CV: https://english.yale.edu/sites/default/files/stillman_sarah_-_cv18.pdf A person of her literary stature would obviously not have referred to the Nautilus award in her CV unless she thought it notable.

All the mentioned sources are mainstream and most notable, and they all behave as they regard the Nautilus Awards to be notable as well. For me this makes the article, as such, a clear Keep. It ought of course to be improved upon, however. Cheers Cosimo d'Medici (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overvotes struck. You are only permitted to vote once per discussion. Based on your conduct to this point, I am blocking your further participation in this discussion. BD2412 T 01:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this one more time to allow more experienced and/or non-involved editors to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply fails WP:GNG. What these awards rely on is that the people they give awards to talk about it. Literally none of the references to famous people or notable organizations talking about awards they've won helps satisfy notability here. What we need is independent coverage of the awards themselves from people who haven't already won one and have no connection to the awards. The absence thereof is why it fails GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendrites's analysis of the sources I found. I did a detailed search for sources and those were the only ones that had nontrivial coverage of Nautilus Book Awards. There is insufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is limited to recipients of awards, rather than independent sources on the awards themselves Dexxtrall (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any evidence this award is significant, it has generated no media or scholarly coverage, and seems to have next to zero recognition outside PR efforts of those who received it and try to use it to pad their resume/promote their work. Heck, the article doesn't even say clearly who gives out the award. Nor is that info provided on the award's official pages: [35]. Seems like some form of a scam, or if it is not, it is so poorly conceived and executed that there is no noticeable difference anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 18 May 2021 (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 acquisitions by Juniper Networks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trapeze Networks edit

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Alternatively can place a redirect to List_of_acquisitions_by_Juniper_Networks. Kolma8 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. There is no prejudice against undoing the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources can be found.
Cunard (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Juniper Networks where the acquisition of this company is covered. Most of the references are of financial transactions, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH; the other is a Frost & Sullivan product report, insufficient to demonstrate that notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2021 (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 acquisitions by Juniper Networks. While more participation here would have been ideal, after two relistings, overall consensus is to redirect. A potential merge can be discussed at Talk:List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks if desired, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Broadband Communications edit

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP Kolma8 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively can place a redirect to List_of_acquisitions_by_Juniper_Networks. Kolma8 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. There is no prejudice against undoing the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources can be found.
Cunard (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks As per Cunard.Hypogaearoots (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian University of Bangladesh edit

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

No indication of pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 09:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's legit a real university, and proof of existence has always been considered sufficient for articles on higher education institution (and secondary ones for that matter). Herostratus (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a private university and as such is not inherently notable. Therefore it has to pass WP:NORG. The standard of which relies solely on the quality of the sourcing that we have available for the topic of the article. Which from what I can tell is extremely lacking due to everything being either primary, blog posts, or otherwise trivial coverage that lacks any kind of depth to it. I'm more then happy to change my vote if someone can come up with WP:THREE sources that pass the standards of WP:NORG though. It should be pretty easy for anyone who thinks the article should be kept to find the necessary sourcing if this really is a notable, mainstream university. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's news to me that universities aren't assumed to rate articles here. I mean, even high schools always have.

On the other hand, I dunno. Looking for sources... there's this in the Daily Asian Age which looks like an article but is actually an ad. There is this in The Conversation which looks like an article but is actually an ad. There is this at the Daily Observer which looks like an article but is actually an ad... I mean, this does look kind of sketchy. On the other hand, here is a full article at BDNews24.com, and here is a follow-up article. True, these articles are apparently about the university is corrupt, but nobody says the article has to praise the university. If it's notable for being corrupt, let's go with that. Here's a small article in the Daily Star, granted, about an unnotable little ceremony. This is just an announcement... huh, here is an entry at "nu-edu-bd.ne" which the url looks like its kind of trying to pretend to be associated with the National University, Bangladesh but apparently isn't. At any rate, it's clearly a press release.

There is a thing called the The Asian Age which is notable and legit, but the Daily Asian Age is different and I'm guessing they print press releases to look like articles, presumably for a fee. So, here is a full (short) interview in that paper with the Vice Chancellor of Canadian University of Bangladesh. I mean, it's softball questions that just give him a chance to say good things about the university ("What is the main strength of the university?" etc), so take that for what it's worth... Here is something at "eng.campuslive24.com" which I guess is legit, but it's just a routine bit about a single seminar... oh, The Independent has a (very short) article here and looks legit, and here is something from them, granted another routine announcement of a celebration. And there's some other stuff already in the article.

All these routine announcements aren't much by themselves, but taken together they show that there's some coverage of the university in the papers, enough to base an article on, particularly if we add a section about the (apparently notable) land transfer scandal (EDIT: which I have now done). Herostratus (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY is in play now I contend, as I about doubled the article size with a couple of refs to extensive articles in a legit major news source. Much better article now I think. And I'm confident the University would be pleased to see that our material is now more in-depth and covers more facets of their institution, heh. And the other refs I found above can be used to flesh out the top of the article a bit more if desired. Herostratus (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements and comment by User:Herostratus.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is Wikipedia usually into covering scandals or gossip? Especially in cases where they don't go anywhere and both parties involved deny any wrong doing? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For institutions, I guess, if it's described at notable length in notable sources. For scandals. For gossip, not so much, but this isn't gossip. It's a serious allegation of malfeasance by a government agency. Everybody always denies wrongdoing, and anyway we reported their denial, and the reader can look at the sources if she wants more, and RAJUK didn't deny that it happened, just that it's nitpicking to worry about it, which of course they would say that. If all this concerned an individual we'd be a lot more circumspect per WP:BLP. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think it's OK to make unsubstituted, un-verified claims in an article about a company any more then it is to make them in biographical article. There still has to be more for something to be encyclopedic then "he said, she said." Notable sources or not. Since the notable sources are not getting the information from proven, reliable ones or from evidence due to their own research. Like we wouldn't put in an article about a company that they abuse their employees just because a few employees said so and it was printed somewhere in the absence of anything else to back it up. Like you say, at this point there is just an allegation of malfeasance. How is an allegation any different then gossip? It's still someone saying something about someone else and there being zero real world evidence to backup their claim. Sure, people can just read the sources if they want to know more, but that could go for anything and the point in articles is not to refer people to other websites to get relevant details about a topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the sources are fine, it's just that with an individual we would ask "it it kind, or necessary, to include this?" We don't have to be as sensitive to non-living entities. So OK, we're not saying the allegations are true, we're just saying that've been made. By BDnews24 which looks to be legit major news source, and after investigation by a legit actual investigative reporter named Obaidur Masum, who seems to be a legit working reporter. And we're talking about an accusation made by a ministry, not some rando reporter. And it's notable for the reader for learning about the entity, I think.

So, by all means, if BDnews24 and/or Obaidur Masum are unreliable, show us. If the main facts in the article are not true or may not be true, show us. If the Bangladesh Ministry of Housing and Public Works did not accuse RAJUK of defying the High Court, show us. (I'm dubious that making up stuff like that out of thin air would not fit BDnews24's business model, but I'm willing to be educated.) Even it it did, maybe they article is cherry-picking facts, and show us.

We do have "Both the University and RAJUK denied malfeasance" at the end. By all means we could expand on that some (and you're welcome to do so): "Both the University and RAJUK denied malfeasance, because ______, and they also said ________ and _____." Looking at the source articles, let's see...

No RAJUK officials responded to questions on how they changed the category of the plot even after the High Court instructed otherwise. RAJUK member Abul Kalam Azad, who signed the work letter submitted to the board meeting to change the type of the plot, refused to comment when the bdnews24.com correspondent met him in his office on Mar 4. "Why are you so interested about the Canadian University? Is it a national issue? There are many other things to write news about" he said.

which doesn't really sound like much of a denial, just saying.

Abdur Rahman, whose term as Rajuk chairman ended recently, declined to comment on the issue. He presided over the board meeting that cleared the proposal to allot the plot to the university on Dec 26... Incumbent Chairman Sultan Ahmed told bdnews24.com on May 2 that he knew nothing about it.

In the beginning of the statement [from the University], the university says: ":There has been a bid to belittle Dr Chowdhury Nafeez Sarafat, the founding chairman of the Canadian University of Bangladesh"... The private university’s Acting Vice-Chancellor Nazrul Islam claimed the report is "imaginary, baseless, and intentional" in the statement. BDnews24.com, however, has failed to get the points raised in the statement despite carefully going over it.... It questions the use of Sarafat’s photo twice in the report and says: "The photos of the university and chairman have been presented very negatively in the report which is tantamount to libel." ..."The fact is, it can never constitute a change of category if a land for secondary school is given to a university because both are educational institutions"...

Which is the heart of the matter, I guess. It is particularly the heart of the matter we're talking about a not-for-profit secondary school, and/or if the Canadian University is a for-profit institution (but even if not, there's room for grift I am sure). The paper responded with:

In line with the rules of journalism, it is a matter of public interest when the Supreme Court of the country and the highest relevant level of the executive raise objection to something.

Which seems reasonable to me.

I'm sure its a fine institution and by all means, it'd be great to add more info to the article about other things about the University -- notable scholars they have employed, notable works produced under their aegis, notable things students have done, interesting programs they run, their plans for the future, info about their size and so forth, and how they are structured as a corporation, etc etc. etc. I haven't found sources for that stuff right off, but there's probably a lot in Bengali. Herostratus (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the news reporter who wrote the article. Whatever their credentials are, it still doesn't negate the fact that the story is still purely based on hearsay. I'd be totally fine with it if there was something like a court case or at least a legal filing, but someone just saying a crime was committed in absence of either of those is not reliable and shouldn't be in the article.

"Someone said someone did something" in absence of anything solid is extremely run of the mill and non-encyclopedic. Otherwise almost every article for a celebrity would have a "accusations of sexual harassment" section. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid though. Just because it's a company and not a person doesn't negate that or make it OK for articles about companies to be tabloidish. Period.

Way more so in this case because disputes and problems over land deals/zoning are pretty routine events, happen all the time, and yet the article frames a pretty run of the mill land dispute as if it's a scandal, because that's how your wrote and are framing it. When it really isn't a scandal and from what I can tell the sources don't even refer to it as one. Only you have and likely only because such weasel words make the whole thing seem more notable then it actually is. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hear you. Guess we'll agree to disagree. This can be discussed at the article talk page, when and if the article is kept; or, you could go there now and advocate to get the material removed, or reduced, and if you are successful quickly enough that could affect the article's retention chances. I don't know as it's a good look to try to remove value from an article that's at AfD though.

And if you are successful, I'm still for keeping the article on the grounds that after all proof of existence has always been sufficient for keeping articles on secondary schools let alone universities, and that beyond proof of existence there's probably sufficient ref'd material to make a short and poor, but acceptable, article which can be improved over time as they gain coverage. Herostratus (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good. I rather discuss things that adversely effect an AfD in the AfD. That might just be me though. That said, if I want to remove content from the article that goes against the guidelines, I can just remove the content. People don't need to "advocate" for changing an article to actually reflect how the sources portray an event or to remove weasel words. Anyway, at least you don't deny the fact that you intentionally used the word "scandal" to make the land dispute seem notable then it actually is. I guess it's on the "voters" if they think calling something that's otherwise extremely trivial a "scandal" is worth keeping the article over. IMO it's not.

Let alone do I think it's worth keeping the article now in lack of it being notable as a subject so it can be "improved" later when there's actually notable coverage on it. In the meantime, advocating for keeping a "poor" article just in case it can be improved in the future is a bad look if there ever was one. Articles are extremely easy to recreate in the future when there's actually good coverage. So there's zero need, let alone valid reason, to keep it now "just because." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate, government-approved, degree-awarding university. We keep these by long consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like all the other similar AfDs where you said the same exact thing and they still ended in the article being deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which universities (rather than colleges) would those be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Government registered, recognised, degree-awarding university. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Private colleges are not inherently notable. They are treated the same as any other type of private organization. Even if they are "recognized" by the government and award degrees. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2021 (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. After three (!!!) relists, there's clearly no consensus to delete the article. ——Serial 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ——Serial 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atiq Chishti edit

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Unicorns List A players Only 2 LA matches for the semi-pro Unicorns side and an extensive minor counties career. Only a few match reports and usual database stuff, nothing that could be considered significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round - any thoughts? Redirect? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant minor counties career (50+ appearances), which supplements his two LA appearances. StickyWicket (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:CRIN with 2 List A appearances. Although there is a little coverage about him in match reports, the fact there's the cricketer played cricket in the pre-internet era and so its normal to get less coverage. I think WP:GNG can be considered for such players passing NCRIC who played in the pre-internet era. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:03, 22 May 2021 (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. Sandstein 20:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Urbanowski edit

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

This has been tagged with notability concerns since 2015. All of the available sources are statistical, I cannot find any WP:GNG SIGCOV of him, even searching in Polish. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Catalogue-like stats entry, fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sigcov found for this Athlete, search in polish also did not present sufficient coverage CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has represented his country at a senior global championship, as referenced in the guideline at WP:NTRACK. Note that the IAAF World Cross Country Championships is the only global competition for cross country running, thus represents the pinnacle of the sport. SFB 20:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs to pass WP:GNG per WP:NSPORT. Merely passing a sports SNG isn't enough. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNG is the relevant guideline, and it does not appear to be met. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fonus edit

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE shows no hits in reliable sources, all I see are press releases and sponsored posts. There’s absolutely 0 WP:ORGDEPTH and their sole claim to notability is being on a “Top ten” list. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator's reasoning. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 17:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have just added several media sources, including Les Affaires, one of the largest business newspapers in Quebec, Canada, MobileSyrup, GetConnected, and iPhoneinCanada. These satisfy the cited notability principles in my opinion. Craftsman2116 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator's reasoning. Couldn't even find this company on Google Scholar. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources added and cited by the author are secondary sources, independent (some are even highly critical of the company), and significant; as per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.0 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being able to find something on Google Scholar isn’t the standard measurement of notability on Wikipedia. I can find plenty of articles where the subject matter covered yields no results at all on Google Scholar. Duplicate !vote by Craftsman2116. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founded by Simon Tian, a notable Canadian businessman and also partnered with AT&T, a well-known company of course. Sources can be improved, but the company looks notable overall. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources make it look notable? Because notability has nothing to do with founders and partners. Uncle G (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG with several good Canadian and international sources. More paragraphs also could be easily forked from Simon Tian. Atlanticatticus (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked at the sources presented and searched myself and the sources are the usual bag of company announcements, interviews/quotes and mentions in passing, none meet WP:NCORP requirements. Company is run-of-the-mill, no indications of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The appropriate SNG for corporations is WP:NCORP which places a higher standard of scrutiny on sources used to establish notability. Quoting the GNG, which has a less strict standard, does not mean the references meet the appropriate standard. The latest reference posted by Peter303x below is from a one-person website/blog which accepts commissions for "reviewing" products and services. Fails WP:RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: failing WP:NCORP lacking in-depth sigcov, no independent reliable sources CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Meets WP:GNG, plenty of coverage exists and in-depth as well such as this.Peter303x (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That website fails as a reliable source, it is little more than a blog by a person who accepts commissions for reviewing products and services. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Peter, that link is a hyperbolic "advertorial" which is hardly WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator's reasoning. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2021 (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.

[1] "Karara's "Harb Karmouz" becomes Egypt's highest grossing movie in one day". egyptindependent.com.

[2] "Review: 10 Reasons Behind "Al Ikhtiyar" Success". Sada El-Balad English.

[1]

[2]