Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< June 24	June 26 >

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 keep‎. I see the consensus here as against Deletion of these articles but that editors are open to Redirection or Merger of some of these pages if the nominator or another editor would like to pursue those options. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Envy & Other Sins

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

Band and associated articles do not appear to be notable. Couldn't find any coverage beyond the NME article sourced in the band's article. Only one single charted, but it was only in the bottom half of the chart for one week. Could merge/redirect what little is here to Orange unsignedAct, though the notability of that series is also questionable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:BAND#2 applies as WP:CHART is top 100 and they hit #65. Band#5 doesn't apply as they only had one major label album.

I was almost at delete because I did a series of searches and can't find anything other than the NME article. It could be this content could be merged into one of the other band articles for Jim Macaulay the drummer, but only The Stranglers mentions him and he was a replacement drummer which means he's not really fundamental to their history. So this article is the place, and they squeak through with that charted single. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it appeared on a weekly chart for just one week, and not particularly high. Just because it placed on a chart at all doesn't necessarily mean it passes. And even then, that's one song that charted, not the album. It could be a keep for the song (though I still disagree with that) but that doesn't necessarily transfer to the album or band. Remember that notability is not inherited. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a WP:Inherited argument. If an article satisfies a notability criterion, it satisfies it. There's no time-on-the-chart requirement in WP:BAND. Oblivy (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking again I see you've nominated everything relating to this band in one fell swoop. The single does apply to the band, per WP:BAND#2. The album, fair enough, although it's more an argument for merging the album article into the band's page than outright deletion.Oblivy (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's some press from reliable sources about the band themselves: Gigwise Drowned in Sound The Line of Best Fit Channel 4 Hit40UK The Mag Yorkshire Evening Post Birmingham Mail God Is in the TV The Guardian Clash BBC

About the album: Drowned in Sound Gigwise Yahoo! Music Belfast Telegraph NME

And about the single: DIY Digital Spy NME Stuff

I'll admit that none of the articles is in a particularly good state, and I was probably more than a little overzealous when I created the "Songs recorded by" list, so that one can probably be redirected. But, personally, I think these articles' problems are not insurmountable and that the band meets the WP:GNG. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band article and merge or redirect the other articles to the band article. The Drowned in Sound review, Yorkshire Evening Post, Birmingham Mail, Belfast Telegraph and paragraph from The Guardian are enough for WP:GNG of the band in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waddells Corner, Maryland

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

Sourced only to GNIS; could not find any coverage of an actual community at this location. Newspaper articles use it as a landmark when discussing road coverage, and a few articles mention a migrant camp at the crossroads [1][2], but nothing approaching the requirements of GNG or GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 17:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maryland. –dlthewave ☎ 17:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is a tough one. The state/county dignifies it with a town name sign as you approach from the north, and it does look like a tiny town both at present and in older aerials, though the buildings change over the years. That said, it's hard for me to defend keeping it given the near total lack of information besides its location. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google Earth shows a crossroads with a farm stand. There's no stop light. There's a subdivision of about 40-45 homes nearby. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are quite a few articles at newspapers.com. This was clearly a community. In the Denton Journal June 11, 1943, there is an article about a migrant labor camp being setup in Waddell's Corner. The Waddells Corner Labor Camp got a lot of press over the years. There were several crime reports, including one in August or September of 1954 when a worker murdered another in a crap game at Waddell's Corner migrant labor camp. The migrant labor camp there also was in the national news July 18 1958. There are several mentions about the Waddells and that Waddells Corner was named for the family. In August of 1958, the state attempted to claim imminent domain from "15 property owners from Waddells Corner". These sources show this was clearly a community, not just some crossroads. This is not one of those places with one or two newspaper articles, there are hundreds. Jacona (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Jacona. It is/was a bona fide populated place, and we can provide some verifiable and encyclopedic information beyond the location. I would actually much rather merge this, as there really doesn't seem likely that there is anything to say about it that couldn't fit into a moderately verbose list, but we have no such list currently (only a bare list of placenames in the county article). So until someone puts in some substantial work to build out a proper List of populated places in Dorchester County, Maryland, we face a zero-sum question of whether to keep or delete, and I don't see a convincing basis for deleting encyclopedic content here. Ultimately the project and its users are much better served by following the bedrock policy of WP:PRESERVE. -- Visviva (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if this article (or any other that I have !voted to keep) is kept, please feel free to message/ping me and I will take my best shot at improvement. -- Visviva (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welco Corners, Illinois

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

Sourced only to GNIS, there's no evidence that Welco Corners was ever anything more than a highway junction. My BEFORE search returned nothing that described this as a community, much less an officially-recognized one, and sources primarily use it as a landmark ("The highway was repaved from Welco Corners to the county line") which isn't sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google Earth shows this as another intersection in an area of sprawl in Metro Chicago. The Interstate exit sign says "Joliet Road", not Welco Corners. Today, there's nothing distinctive about this location. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no sourcing for this article and there is no reason to believe this place is notable enough to warrant an article.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rock, Yavapai County, Arizona

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

At its heart, this article is just another piece of GNIS spam. I couldn't find any coverage of a place called Red Rock aside from Red Rock State Park. "Red Rock Crossing" seems to be a simple road crossing of the river which is sourced only to a now-defunct special interest group which opposed a proposed bridge. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a populated place:

The community association gives a bit of history.
The historic cemetery lists the names of some of the early settlers.
History of Red Rock, although it does not indicate it was more than a ranch.
Another history of Red Rock, and of early settlers, the Schuermans. Also discusses the first school and cemetery.
The GIS for Yavapai County shows the community on its map.

Most important, go to Google Maps, or any map, and you'll see a community of many houses there, and one of the roads in the community is Schuermans Drive. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Magnolia677. Does appear to have been a recognised community. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Magnolia677's analysis. Passes GNG and GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources found by Magnolia677 this meets GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, sources provided by Magnolia677 are sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last March, the Schuerman Homestead House, at 120 Loy Lane in Red Rock, was added to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Yavapai County, Arizona. In 1954, the movie Drum Beat staring Alan Ladd was filmed there, see [3]. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Senn (video game designer)

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

Fails WP:N, not independently notable, and no significant coverage from any reliable source OceanHok (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know his involvement with Sonic Xtreme is heavily documented in reliable sources in a general sense, but it would take reviewing to verify that the coverage is truly about him - much of it may be more in the context of the game rather than him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sources in the article are not suitable for establishing notability, and searches did not really turn up any coverage on Senn. There were some books and articles that have quotes from him, in regards to his work on Sonic Xtreme, but like Sergecross73 suggested, this kind of coverage is really on Sonic Xtreme, and not actual coverage about Senn, himself. I also took a quick look around for sources on his current company, Senntertain, and similarly did not find much coverage in reliable sources on it. Rorshacma (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keti Chomata

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keti Chomata's article only has 5 sources, one of them is inaccessible, another one is a blog, another doesn't even mention her and the other two are from two different Greek newspapers, one of them being a celebrity gossip newspaper so not reliable. This leaves a sole article from Lifo newspaper, definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC and all 12 criteria for WP:SINGER. No relevant newspapers articles and google results can be found online either. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 15:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You simply have to search in Greek (or whichever minor, in e.g. number of speakers, modern language you deal with) to find relevant stuff, it's as simple as that. So unless the real criterion is either Anglophones know about it or it doesn't exist, please refrain from such hasty proposals.
PS. I'm adding more and/or fixing refs now.
Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject might be more known in Greece but this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers which is definitely not the case. Furthermore after looking through the Greek results, Keti Chomata only has a couple of articles about her and most of them are quite short, just having 2 or 3 paragraphs or a video, the rest of the articles results are just mere passages of her name, the same applies to the books, just passages of her name and definitely not enough to establish notability. SpaceEconomist192 ✐
@SpaceEconomist192: this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers ← That is absolutely not how it works. All we care is that something is significant according to reliable sources—not that those reliable sources are in English. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it needs English sources, I'm aware of WP:NOENG. I already refuted the premise that the subject had reliable sources in Greek. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the Lifo article the first three references in the Greek wikipedia article here show significant coverage directly about her. It also states that she had a number of hit singles from her 18 released albums. There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Source and cute analysis seems compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Griffin (psychologist)

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

I am not finding anything to indicate that this Irish psychologist and self-help writer meets either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. He has published prolifically, but none of the refs support GNG. I found only one article which mentions him: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/helping-humanity-thrive/202303/why-we-dream.
I am not sure that my google-fu is in top gear today, so maybe I have missed something ... but so far this all looks to me like promotional stuff with non-RS refs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Griffin is widely credited and discussed as a co-founder of the Human Givens approach to psychotherapy, including by authors with no apparent promotional intent, e.g. here, which would seem to meet point 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. (I'll confess I had never heard of "Human Givens" until just now, but then again I am not a psychotherapist and it seems to be a somewhat influential thing about which whole books have been written.) -- Visviva (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he is the founder of a viable branch of psychology, I do not find expected evidence. His works are barely cited (single digits) in Scholar. There are mentions (only a few) of his "invention" but little about him. I note that articles exist for his co-author, Ivan Tyrrell, about whom even fewer sources exist, and for the technique, Human givens, which appears to be well-sourced. A redirect from Givens (and, IMO, Tyrrell) to the article for the technique would suffice. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a couple very brief reviews by the same community health nurse in Nursing Standard magazine (non-academic) of his books Freedom from Addiction and How to Lift Depression--Fast (these would count as one source, if at all), plus another review of the latter in another journal (Mental Health Practice) by the same publisher. There's also a first-person account (primary) in Independent Nurse magazine (non-academic) from a nurse who uses the human givens approach. There are also non-fiction books from Jessica Kingsley Publishers (publishes in Chinese medicine). But the majority of "academic" sources on the approach are from Human Givens Publishing (non-independent) or are in predatory or pseudoscientific journals like Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar (articles submitted through the predatory publisher ScopeMed), NeuroQuantology, . The ones that aren't are mostly uncited articles in very low-impact journals like Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry (IF 0.185), Mental Health Review Journal (IF 1.51), Educational and Child Psychology (IF 0.49), a lot of them by the same couple authors. Only 8 hits for "human givens therapy" in Scopus keywords, 25 overall. I'm concerned that this is a rather FRINGE method. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Human Givens Therapy is an established therapy in the UK and Joe Griffin cowrote the book which developed the therapy "Human Givens: The New Approach to Emotional Health and Clear Thinking", which was reviewed by Psychology Today,^[1]Starlighsky (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Skylighsky[reply]

@Starlighsky: There is an article for the Human givens therapy, which that Psychology Today article could be considered in support of. The article you link to does not give information on Griffin, and it is this latter which is needed so that Griffin can have an article on Wikipedia. If you think this Wikipedia article should be retained then you need to provide sources that are substantially about Griffin. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK...Will do, thanks Starlighsky (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edited what I wrote. Joe Griffin and Human Givens Therapy was extensive coverage on Google Scholar, because the therapy is cited quite often. Starlighsky (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/human-givens-therapy

I also looked at G-Scholar but do not see "extensive" coverage. It would be helpful if you could link to 3 or more of the sources you see there that you consider to be extensive. Note that non-scholarly resources, like this conference (which is held by the HG institute) aren't considered good sources. Also, if I may say so, it might be better if you would "lurk" here for a bit until you understand the AFD culture and the policies that feed into delete/keep decisions. Lamona (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regents' and Chancellor's Scholarship

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

Subject is not notable ElKevbo (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable subject failing NLIST. Might be a viable category however. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't really seem to be a coherent topic; sources, such as they are, talk about one or the other but not both together. It's possible that the Regent's Scholarship by itself could be a notable topic, but I'm not seeing much evidence of it. If there is anything of encyclopedic significance to be covered about that scholarship, it could probably be addressed in the Regents of the University of California article. -- Visviva (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martiros Vartanov

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

WP:BLP of an organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for organizational founders. The article essentially just states that he and the organization exist, and is referenced to one primary source that isn't support for notability and one source that tangentially verifies the existence of the organization without mentioning this person's name at all -- and then there's a contextless linkfarm of excessive "external links" that includes repeats of the same two links, more primary sources, and some sources that briefly namecheck the subject's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, none of which is contributing to getting him over WP:GNG. As always, people are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third party coverage in reliable sources that analyzes the significance of their work, but nothing like that is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of political parties in Turkey. History is there if there's sourced material worth merging. There is no consensus to do so at the moment, but the redirect is a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary People's Party (Turkey)

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

Unsourced since creation over a decade ago, with no real content. Unlikely to be relevant. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any sources at all in Turkish. Mccapra (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a more precise search term, I could find some minor sourcing [4], [5], [6], as well as a few books. Given the era this party was active (it dissolved in 1999, while the WP article implies that it still exists), coverage is more likely to be offline. If heavily tweaked to filter out unrelated content, the Milliyet archive gives 13 articles where this party is in some way mentioned. I don't think it's a far stretch to think that this passes the GNG, given that it is one of the few parties ever that was openly associated with the PKK. ~Styyx^Talk? 07:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Styyxie (talk • contribs) [reply]
Comment well far-left Turkish parties are an alphabeti spaghetti of the same terms used in a different order over and over again, so that organisations with similar or even identical names at different times may or may not be the same organisation. Looking at the Milliyet archive a number of the stories date from 1992 and 1993, demonstrating that there was an organisation with this name in those years, but since the subject of this article wasn’t founded until 1994, they can’t be the same one. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in addition the three additional sources indicated by Styx are just passing mentions. Some of the book refs may be more substantal but only snippets are showing so I can’t tell. Anyway there’s no question the party existed but I’m still not seeing any in-depth coverage. Perhaps there’s a suitable redirect target such as List of political parties in Turkey where this party could be added. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of political parties in Turkey (and redirect there) per all above. Aintabli (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Agapov

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only sourced to databases. Non database coverage is only this routine namecheck that has one sentence about him and player roster listing. Kges1901 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Kges1901 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Agapov had two useful seasons in the Russian second division with FC Fakel and one good season in Kazakhstan with FC Shakhter, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage (the sports.kz article linked above and a sovsport.ru article make very brief mentions, and there are several match reports with even less coverage). Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Regardless of whether it's a hoax or not, we're lacking in reliable source coverage. Star Mississippi 17:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkan and Curcan massacres

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

Sourcing and tone leave a lot to be desired. A few of the sources seem to be unreliable fringe publications, others are inaccessible. With an alleged death toll of over 100k, I'm finding it hard to pull up any reliable academic sourcing that would even establish the existence of the massacres. Mooonswimmer 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I couldn’t find any reliable source in google books or any recognizable academic institution or publisher showing anything as “Talkan and Curcan massacres”. Almost all the cited sources are inaccessible, unreliable or unrecognizable sources, quotes like quoting al-hajaj saying “he is an enemy to muslims, kill him without any mercy” can’t be found in any accessible reliable source or anywhere in general, it seems that the page is made for nationalistic and/or propagandistic purpose and have nothing to do with history and meets wp:HOAX criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafique (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Islam, and Central Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing, appears OR, or HOAX. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. The place is Taloqan (also spelled Talaqan). You can read al-Tabari's account here. These events took on great significance in Kemalist historiography, so I'm sure there some unreliable stuff out there. However, it is not a hoax. Srnec (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, al-Tabari isn’t a reliable source per WP:RS. Second of all it’s not al-Tabari reporting here, he is mentioning a report by an anonymous source (note also that the word “massacre” is never used and there is no mention for Curcan). Finally there is no single academic or any reliable historical secondary source mentioning anything about a such massacre or incident, whether some kemalist politicians or propaganda promote hoax or not for political reasons it’s not relevant here. Chafique (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb, which is freely available online. For a brief survey of the contradictory traditions mentioned by Gibb, see Andrew Marsham, "Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). It isn't a hoax and that is not a valid grounds for deletion. For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Turkish Studies 14.2 (2013): 372–393 (quoted at 380). Srnec (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb. again, you are missing the main point, Al-Tabari himself is not a reliable source and a wikipedia article can’t be established based on his writings per WP:RS. You need a reliable secondary source to establish the topic’s notability and prove it’s existence (check WP:PST).

just a side question relatively unrelated to the discussion, can you tell us who is Gibb ?

For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Now regarding kemalist political propagada textbooks, they are not reliable sources neither, they are heavily criticized by A LOT of academic and reliable sources for genocide denial and promoting propaganda and poor to no reputation for facts checking facts or with editorial oversight, there is an entire wikipedia article with tons of sources called Turkish textbook controversies, they are not reliable sources per WP:QUESTIONED. Aside from that, can you send us the quote from that source where the author (himself) says “talqan massacre” or “talqan people were massacred” or mention anything about curcan ?, because I can’t find it.

"Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). no mention for a massacre nor for anything about curcan. Chafique (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, I'm amenable to restoration to that namespace or User space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List countries by Bengali speakers

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

WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH (WP:CIRC). Created 4 days ago, apparently from arbitrarily WP:copying within Wikipedia without mentioning sources. Article states: Some numbers have been calculated by Wikipedia editors by mixing data from different sources; figures not attributed to sources and given with a date should be treated with caution. In most sources, the results shown are of people who say that they can speak Bengali, while that was not verified; which means the actual number of Bengali speakers could be higher or lower. This means the creator has not taken up the basic WP:BURDEN of providing WP:RS and Wikipedia:Attribution, and expects other people to fix the problems he caused. This is in line with a common pattern of disregarding policies and guidelines by creator User:Marxist Economist ever since he began editing Wikipedia 2 months ago, and has been repeatedly warned about from day 1, but seems to ignore. As this is a theoretically potentially legitimate topic, I say we WP:TNT this, and wait for someone else to start over properly. (I would recommend a standardised article title like Geographical distribution of Bengali speakers per established convention in such a case). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Mccapra (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article needs fixing, but there is no need to start over. This article is not nearly bad enough to be deleted per WP:TNT. It is OR to some extent as it copies from other Wikipedia pages, but someone can update the page with references and fix any grammatical errors without much difficulty. WP:TNTTNT explains my reasoning well. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is calling for violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract with contributors, that they are credited with their contributions by the page history of an article. That is exactly what the creator of this article has done by explicitly admitting he does not attribute any figures to any sources whatsoever, plus copying within Wikipedia from other contributors without giving credit where it is due. If this "fundamental contract with contributors" is regarded as significant, then the first thing we should do is delete this copyvio and punish the creator for his violation of the contract. As noted (and can be seen on his talk page since day 1), this is not the first time he is violating many of the Wikipedia community's rules. As for what is here, it is so small with such a short history that it's not even worth saving. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is mainly an issue caused by ME's behavior, maybe a better solution would be to take up his behavior at ANI and draftify this article? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, looking over WP:TNT more closely, I'm not opposed to a deletion either. This article plainly falls under the TNT argument mentioned there: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. I'd like something along the lines of ANI to address the root cause, though. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No opposition to draftification. I'm not sure there's a strict copyvio issue here, as the bare numbers in the table seem highly unlikely to be eligible for copyright; but there really doesn't seem to be anything salvageable here, just a small pile of unverified and possibly unverifiable numbers. It's not even clear if the list description's reference to "Wikipedia editors" refers to the editor(s) of this page or other pages. But either way that just isn't an acceptable way to source information. -- Visviva (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic-speaking world

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems:

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sections are largely WP:COATRACKs of tangentially related stuff and WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed (e.g. Germanic-speaking world randomly combines bits and pieces of Germania/Germanic peoples history, then an WP:UNSOURCED list of speakers of Germanic languages, then another WP:UNSOURCED table, and then two WP:SYNTHed tables about two Germanic languages in particular).

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which deleted

following a very, very long series of precedents which established that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries.

Indirectly, this AfD is linked to:

ongoing Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables;
other follow-ups including "Comparison of the Baltic states" AfD;
- Update 20 June:

Comparison of the Baltic states has been deleted.
Comparison of the Benelux countries has been deleted.
Comparison of the Nordic countries has been deleted.

It's also worth noting that List of Austronesian regions was found to be "OR nonsense", and redirected. Germanic-speaking Europe already redirects to Languages of Europe#Germanic, and Romance-speaking Europe to Languages of Europe#Romance. So redirecting rather than fully deleting is perhaps also an option. But it is not my preference, because those articles usually have their own problems with sourcing, OR/SYNTH and whatnot. Before deciding we should redirect/merge articles, we should make sure we aren't just moving the problems to somewhere else without actually solving them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while there might be language topics that merit articles, creating articles from broad groups like "Germanic" or "Romance" is, as mentioned, trivia or OR. Iberophone could be deleted or redirected to the actual topic of Organization of Ibero-American States. Finno-Urgic countries seems a plausible search, so I would redirect that to Finno-Ugric languages. CMD (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasoning given. We've seen over and over that people making these articles are either adding nothing to the articles we have about language families, or else what they are are adding are implied racial folk-theories. (The classic discussions we always have about how Afrikaners should be included, but not Jamaicans or Irish.) I think it is easier to source ways of dividing up Europe based on which alcoholic drinks they drink, or whether they cook with butter or olive oil, and I don't think we have articles on those. Language families are certainly discussed in Wikipedia as language families, but not as types of people. Correlations between languages and ancestry or cultures are for careful discussion within articles (if there are good sources) and not just things our editors may assume to be "obvious" without sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have said it better myself. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iberophone and delete the rest. Unlike the other nominated articles, Iberophone is referenced to sources that deal with the concept, http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ and https://escholarship.org/uc/ssha_transmodernity and https://oei.int/ rather than to sources that deal with a specific language rather than a language family. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you boil it down to the essentials, Iberophone doesn't really amount to much. The article does not advance much further than a dictionary definition (WP:NOTDICT) plus some WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed "country comparison" data dumps, which are currently being considered for total deletion/removal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It's either a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Iberian Romance languages (=language sub-family, a branch of the Romance languages family), or just + Hispanophone + Lusophone. There is nothing more to add beyond 'Hey, did you know that Spanish and Portuguese are closely-related Romance languages that originated next to each other in the Iberian Peninsula, and also sit next to each other in South America? There's even a neologism for it: Iberophone. What great fun!' That's all there is to it, really. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ is very telling: it advances a certain political agenda by advocating for a geopolitical approach called pan-Iberism. It mixes supposed facts ("this reality") and opinions ("this proposal"): [There is a] substantial affinity between the two main Iberian languages (...). This reality means that, in geopolitical, geolinguistic and cultural terms, it is possible to speak of a large multinational space of Iberian-speaking countries that covers all the continents and is made up of more than thirty countries and more than 700 million people. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that we have been needing to delete and remove in recent years/months, in which language families and countries were mixed up to produce lots of WP:CROSSCAT generalisations and oversimplified framings of countries and territories (and their populations) in terms of the language family to which the native languages - which the majority of their inhabitants speak - belong. That's just a plainly WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING fact (which has no bearing on any native speaker's career per WP:OCEGRS, as precedents have repeatedly confirmed). And Wikipedia shouldn't play along with anyone trying to advocate for a certain political agenda based on - encyclopedically speaking - WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING facts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on Iberophone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as original research. The other four are transparent synthesis and I'm convinced by Nederlandse Leeuw's analysis of Iberophone. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; unacceptable combinations of OR and synthesis. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOD'SPE Paris

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

No indication of any kind of notability per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Current sourcing are 2 press releases and a primary source. McSly (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Education, Schools, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" Hi guys. As always, I have created this article because I think this is famous. Created in 1993, so 30 years of experience, by mains actors of the fashion industry (Fédération Française du Prêt-à-Porter Féminin) and non-profit. --BobVillars (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Rani 2 (Tamil TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is a routine update on the serial's ending
Source 2 is a routine update on the serial's ending
Source 3 is a routine promotional update on the serial's starting, and is mainly Instagram posts with cast views
Source 4 is on the cast getting a tattoo
Source 5 is tabloid news with pictures of the shooting spot
Source 6 is a routine entertainment promo that describes an Instagram post
Source 7 is an interview with a cast member Karnataka (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:more value source added, WP:GNG have added references from News18 India [7], www.medianews4u.com [8], The Times of India [9]. sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think these sources explain the notability of the topic:
- Link 5 is routine updates on the casting (news18)
- I'm not sure about Link 6's reliability as a website. however regardless it seems to be a routine entertainment news that states generic information about the source available everywhere else (mn4u)
- Link 7 is a routine update on an actress leaving the serial (ToI, which is unreliable anyways.)
Karnataka (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilash Shetty

AfDs for this article:

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

NN filmmaker UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article. Article have the major references & enough coverage from the media. Trident 1289 (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No significant coverage except a movie Koli Taal, Which is also not much notable.PARVAGE ^talk! 05:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Koli Taal is a notable film in India. It got screened at various international film festivals too. I see you are from Bangladesh so probably you are not aware of this. Please check the film. Trident 1289 (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Koli Taal has got 131 reviews in IMDB, 1 review in Rotten Tomatoes. And it hasn't received any notable awards. Especially, not matter what the movie is but Shetty hasn't done any notable things at all. PARVAGE ^talk! 10:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are more than six full-length articles already cited that meet notability of this person. There is enough coverage from the leading newspapers, magazines of India. And the person has more than five credits on IMDb with 3 wins & 19 nominations at the Awards central. Trident 1289 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:DIRECTOR.3, and the developing consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koli Taal —siro χ o 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam Tamizha

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of women killed fighting for human rights

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

The criteria for this list is not clear, and "fighting for human rights" is a very vague motive. There's also no good reason to limit it to women. Songwaters (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason to delete is not policy based. We make lists based on how reliable sources group things and the first citation shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women.

The "no reason to limit to..." concept could be applied to any list. Why limit it to just those killed? Why limit it to only ones killed for human rights? The answer is always because WP:NLIST handles them in this collective way. CT55555(talk) 01:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides failing WP:NLIST (more on that in a second), the inclusion criterion is hopelessly vague -- killed fighting for human rights? Even "human rights" is a slippery term without a widely agreed upon definition, let alone the difficulty of trying to determine if someone was killed fighting for them. As expected, this article is just going to have unfixable WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. Take for example the case of Shifa Gardi. She appears in the Guardian's list referenced in the list's lead with the following text:
"Shifa Gardi was a reporter for the Kurdish channel Rudaw. She had been credited for breaking the “stereotypes of male-dominated journalism”. She was killed by a roadside bomb while covering the battle for Mosul on 25 February."
How is being a wartime reporter fighting for human rights? Including her on this list for that reason is a stretch and a half; indeed even the articles listed as refs by her entry in the list (one BBC, another in Arabic, so I had to use a machine translation) say nothing about "human rights".
But wait, I hear you say, we have reliable sources that discuss this topic as a set. Just look at the references in the lead! Okay, the first one, from The Guardian is "supported" content -- supported by "Count Me In!", a consortium of groups with a clear agenda. That's not really a value judgement, but it does count against the independence of the source for demonstrating notability. Not to mention that the Gardi example I mentioned above calls into question the reliability of this article due to it's unclear inclusion criteria. The other source is from AWID, an activist organization. This again, disqualifies it from establishing notability on independence (and probably reliability for that matter) grounds. Not only that, but it's simply a memorial list of women activists, regardless of how they died.
That was a long !vote, but this one deserved a closer look. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct to note that Count Me In! support the content, but if you click through, it says "The site is editorially independent of any external support, and the Guardian is solely responsible for all journalistic output."
Other sources that deal with the killing of women human rights defenders:
1. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/02/more-human-rights-defenders-murdered-2021-environmental-indigenous-rights-activists (not the primary subject, but discussed in 2 paragraphs)
2. La Lucha (2015 book) Preface speaks about women human rights defenders who were killed, giving examples.
3. Protecting Human Rights Defenders at Risk, 2020 book: Page 108
CT55555(talk) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is about all people and not about women specifically. And as you argued above, "... and the first citation [in the article] shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women." You can't have it both ways. The third source similarly seems to be discussing all people, whereas the page number you mention is talking about one specific incident. The second source doesn't seem to be discussing women specifically at all...you're just throwing words into a search box and parading around any hits you get as some sort of magical potion to justify a list, but it doesn't work like that. The very sources you bring up are, if anything, evidence against this particular list. And really, at best, what you're doing here is starting to show notability of the overall topic of "violence against human rights activists" or something along those lines (which might even exist already...I haven't looked). But just because we might have an article about that doesn't mean that we should create a list of every incident. Lists like this are beyond problematic due to the unfixable OR/SYNTH issues that I mentioned above. They also smack of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW to a lesser extent. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is about all genders, but then groups by gender and talks about women: "A larger proportion of murdered defenders were women and transgender women, 18% of the total killed compared with 13% in 2020. We’ve seen the horrific killing of women human rights defenders in Afghanistan, including Frozan Safi..."

The second one groups the defender as women in the preface.

The third one groups four women on the page cited.

I am not "just throwing words into a search box" nor am I "parading" anything. I'm doing the normal thing to justify keeping a list, showing you examples if reliable sources grouping the subject of the list.

If you don't find that persuasive, that's OK. Please do assume good faith.

I think a careful reading of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL will make it clear why this does not refute my point or support deletion, I don't think there is any credible claim that anyone is writing about "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances..."

Let's agree to disagree and leave more space for others. I've made my point, I don't wish to bludgeon. CT55555(talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Human rights" is too broad (and vague) per WP:SALAT. (Also, Emily Davison did herself in.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally thought I'd find myself in favor of keeping this, but it's absolutely just way too broad and too vague. This one fails the WP:NLIST requirements, so it should be deleted from Wiki. Some content might be able to merge to other articles, but having a dedicated list isn't feasible here. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to the editors who think that "human rights" is a vague term, it does seem to work fine for List of human rights organisations and we seem to be able to deal with the topic without trouble at Human Rights. We manage to categorise XCategory:Human rights by country, XCategory:Human rights abuses and dozens of others. So what's the problem exactly? CT55555(talk) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “human rights” is well defined, more or less. “Fighting for” human rights is not, making this WP:SYNTH. This might as well be retitled “list of women who I think should be considered martyrs” Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thalattu (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
Source 2 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
Source 3 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and is entirely based on Instagram posts supporting the serial
Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo Karnataka (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have noteworthy coverage in both English ([10], [11], [12], [13]) and Tamil, judging by the corresponding Tamil article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponni (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Soft Delete: there’s a source from The Times of India [14] and News18 India [15]. There may be important updates in the future because the show is still airing.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both these sources listed (source 1 and 3) are just routine coverage of the show, they both contain the exact same content with the layout:
- Introduction, which includes a list of actors
- Plot summary
- Interview from the protagonist
- List of other serials going to premiere
Source 2 is just a Tamil version of source 1, source 4 is a self-published source, and its expertise is unknown, and and source 5 does not mention Ponni at all. I cannot see how this is notable at this moment. Karnataka (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pandavar Illam

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Longest running Tamil serial, WP:GNG have added references from The Times of India [16]. and Sun TV Website [17] and more Episode coverage in Tamil language.[18], [19].--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 1 aka the Times of India source on this reply is routine promotional coverage on the serial hitting a certain milestone and quotes from the actors
- Source 2 is routine coverage on the promotional video and repeatedly states that something detail about the serial is unknown
- Source 3 is a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. The entire body of this source is "Serial story coming soon..." with a list of actors
- Source 4 is also a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. It just lists the serial cast (taking from this archive because the source isn't loading for me)
- Source 5 is routine coverage about the cast receiving their COVID-19 vaccination
This reply links to the show's page on Sun TV (the channel airing the serial which is not independent), which is not a source and none of this proves how this serial is notable for Wikipedia. Karnataka (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Longest running Tamil serial. most of people know about this series. you nominated this is actually a well known one. It does cite it's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:12CA:3C7B:C5A3:1C9A:2FB9:C004 (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Jaamour

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any footballer to have their own article. I've revived the Syrian Soccer article but it's only a trivial squad list mention. Kooora merely lists his goals in the Syria Youth League and is only a database source. I found some Arabic coverage on Facebook but that's not a WP:RS. The only other source that I found was ZAMANALWSL, which is another trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to OpenAI. ✗plicit 14:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Triton (programming language)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, better to redirect to OpenAI, or merge if it's worth mentioning Artem.G (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Artem.G (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BASIC and has minimal content. If kept, it should be merged with another article. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenAI Anton.bersh (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al Hamwi

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

Article has been tagged for multiple issues for many years and I cannot find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The Psyrianp source has a quote from him and, other than that, just confirms his age, position and former club. On its own, this won't be sufficient, especially since quotes directly from the player are not considered to be WP:SIGCOV at AfD, by consensus. Aside from that, I found Al Rai, which is only a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Faraz Rabbani

How is encyclopedic notability being illustrated in this article? If it isn't, should it be shunted over to List of bloggers or List of translators? Please discuss. --GRider\^talk 22:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.

I don't know. Should it? You tell me. Chris 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Lacrimosus 01:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum? Faethon387 02:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Outlook good. Magic 8-Ball 14:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep; nomination is malformed. —Mar ka ci 2005-03-22 T 03:05 Z
Delete, under the bar of notability, reads like a promo. Megan1967 05:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Valid article. Invalid nominator. Wincoote 13:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a keep to me even with the promotional overtones. - Lucky 6.9 05:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote Malicious nomination. --Lee Hunter 03:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vecepia Towery

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

She may have been the very first African American and very first African-American female to win Survivor, and I see some hardcore fandom fawning over her. However, being such and such and such would not be enough to save the article from being deleted, redirected, or whatever else would happen to the article and to prevent WP:BLP1E (or WP:BIO1E) from being applicable. Even those appearing on highly-rated series doesn't make someone like her a high-profile individual. Even appearing in an episode of a TLC series and writing an autobiography (or two) would not cut it, IMO. Even doing other activities haven't prevented (articles about) other certain Survivor winners from being redirected to their own respective season articles (or deleted). The article must be redirected to Survivor: Marquesas. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and Oregon. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Justification to delete is flawed. WP:BLP1E needs three criteria to be met and the second one is not, as evidenced by the media interviews. Examples:

CT55555(talk) 01:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AV Club article is more about racism than more about her, and the EW questionnaire is more of an interview and more of a primary source than secondary IMO. I can't believe you're trying to question my justification. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot believe that I'm trying to question your justification? That seems odd. If you thought this was a slam dunk obvious delete, you'd presumably have done a WP:PROD, and you didn't, so here we are, at WP:AFD. You have suggested it for deletion in a forum where the two main responses are invariably people supporting your justification or people refuting your justification. I see nothing unbelievable about this chain of events. The explanatory essay WP:LOWPROFILE helps us differentiate between high profile and low profile individuals and I think clearly supports my assertion that people giving media interviews are not low profile individuals.

I think my argument is logical, common sense driven and in line with norms here.

I find the essay WP:NOTBLP1E very helpful in these circumstances where people are discussing deleting articles based on their reading of WP:BLP1E.

I hope not to get into a long back and forth on this, I think my !vote speaks for itself and probably doesn't require further justification.

Guided by WP:WHATABOUT, I have not checked the link to another article discussion (regarding your reply below), I prefer to just focus on the article in front of us. CT55555(talk) 14:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you argued just now reminds me of another editor doing the same thing, yet most AFD discussions on one-time Survivor winners resulted in redirecting those articles (and one deletion). You can keep citing essays all you want, but I'm unsure whether they can apply to this discussion. I retain my stance toward this article. George Ho (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even low-profile or non-notable contestants, like this person (who doesn't have an article yet) and that person (whose Wikipedia article was converted into redirect per AFD), have agreed to respond to EW questionnaires. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or merge If you remove the reality summary that reads like a novel synopsis, this article has 3.453 kBytes of prose size, 1.181 kB (194 words) of which is "readable prose size". That's very close to the lower limit of WP:SIZERULE and the suggestion on what to do at that size. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a reality show game winner, this is the epitome of WP:BLP1E - this person is not notable for anything other than this win. Although the first African-American to win, this is still just a TV show winner. Lamona (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Merdeka Tournament

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

Align with WP:TOOSOON, above that wikipedia is NOTNEWS, seems WP:FUTURE. Along with that have citation concern, the first link added is not even a citation, Ref 2 says some countries, mismatch with Ref 3 where 2 countries mentioned. The article can be created when there is a formal announcement of Teams, Venue, Date and Format. Its too early seems crystalball. Drat8sub (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon, Palestine, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merdeka Tournament, does not need a separate article. Giant Snowman 17:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [20], [21], [22], [23], Historic competition renewing for this year. I rather thought it interesting when in 1966 the King opened up the tournament. [24], clearly there is a lot of history to it. It seems important to Asian international football. I truly don't think you're bothering doing a WP:BEFORE and feel this is a bad nomination. Govvy (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I never said, the 2023 edition does not need an article, never said, this is not historical tournament or not important in Asian football. I just pointed out that the article created too soon as no schedule, no team, no venue has been announce by the host federation, which is enough to say its align with TOOSOON. So not a bad nom at all but a justified one for now. When they announces all these then it can be created, otherwise the team written in the article and venue or the format all are aligning with WP:NOTNEWS. Drat8sub (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors, Drat8sub has removed 90% of the page after sending article to AfD. I honestly feel it should be restored. Govvy (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, when 90% is not sourced or unannounced contents, schedule, format, venue, time, teams (not confirmed by MFA, provided sources contradicts each other) nothing is announced yet, but providing such in wikipedia will make wikipedia a news. Mentioned in the edit summary too. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long-standing tournament.--Dl.thinker (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references from official as well as secondary sources. Should pass WP:GNG. Also refer to my reply to Drat8sub under the note below. Dhruv edits (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: However, I am sure, but still saying kindly read the arguements instead of votes. Till now users infavour of keeping the article pointed out reason like historical tournament, Importance, long-standing tournament, but failed to refute the points on guidelines like Article for creation, WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS etc. In reality the tournament is not announced yet formally, just like we will not create an article on 2038 FIFA World Cup based on few secondary unrelaible sources. My argument was never that the article should not be created, my argument was always to be created when the tournament be announced by MFA and follows notability and verifiability but not on speculations or crystalball. That's why it's better to create draft rather than such stubs which fails many criteria & guidelines. Drat8sub (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drat8sub The tournament was announced by Malaysian FA on 5 April 2023. The dates, teams and venue has been announced by the FA. I have added official announcement as a ref. Also enough references from secondary sources have been added about the upcoming tournament to pass WP:GNG. I have reverted your deletion and added refs for all the information that was previously unsourced. Dhruv edits (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it The tournament was created by me and its will begin soon. The format and teams details will announced later this month. Thanks all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MD Hydrogen 123 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A new edition of a well-known tournament Svartner (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Long-standing tournament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to KDE Education Project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KTouch

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

Most of the content is uncited and promotional. Has been tagged since 2014 without improvement. Cannot find much in the way of sourcing to establish notability. Greenman (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination and multiple issues TAG on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KDE Education Project. There are a few mentions here and there, but I don't think the overall depth is sufficient. Of course, a redirect would make it easier should that ever change. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KDE Education Project is a reasonable alternative to deletion, as this program clearly exists and has verifiable basic facts. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Griffin (philosopher)

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

~~Not notable. Seems promotional Very Average Editor (talk)~~ 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Delete As nominator. Also worth noting, most of the contributors are a sock master and his socks. Very Average Editor (talk)07:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Canada Research Chair in Philosophy" should be an automatic pass of [{WP:NPROF]]. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is outdated, as he has retired [25]. The reviews of his solo-author books tip me in the direction of a "keep" by WP:AUTHOR. For Relative Identity, we have at least [26][27][28][29], and for Russell's Idealist Apprenticeship there's at least [30][31]). For The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell, which he edited, a quick search finds [32][33][34][35]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published reviews of his authored books. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning in this direction, but now there's even more in the article than what I found, so I'm content to say that WP:AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ironically, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Maybe this is cause for a speedy close? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - nom. was from a sock, and consensus clear per WP:SNOW. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus for notability, and sources linked show clearly meeting GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) AviationFreak💬 15:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South B

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

Article has been flagged as "local" for more than a decade with little improvement. I wasn't able to find anything substantive on Google, though the name may be complicating that search. I would normally suggest merging to Makadara, which is also barely a stub, but the material (e.g. list of hospitals) isn't cited anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. South B is a legally recognised populated place and so has a presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND. "South B" has two entries in the Kenyan census of 2019 Vol. II Distribution of Population by Administrative Units, page 239 (download at https://www.knbs.or.ke/publications/). One gives a population of 102,441; the other, a divison of this, gives a population of 34,216. Based on what's written, I believe this article is referring to the smaller place. The article states South B is an estate, when perhaps it should be described as a district or suburb of Nairobi. Not a good idea to merge to Makadara as that article appears to be about a nearby area. Rupples (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Geoland does not automatically make every un-notable but legally defined location notable. Per nominator. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modification to uncertain or weak delete. Sirfurboy and others have convinced me that maybe geoland does indeed automatically make every un-notable but legally defined location notable. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear from more editors who are familiar with WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a little reluctant to pander to what can be an overly broad understanding of GEOLAND, but there is a longstanding consensus that Wikipedia is a Gazetteer, per WP:GAZ, which is where the GEOLAND guidelines come from. So this location is deemed notable for a page as long as it is a legally recognised populated place, and perhaps even if it is just a named populated place. South B is recognised, and there is plenty of information about it. It gets mentioned frequently in the Kenya Gazette [36] and here it is in French language press: [37]. You can see the district bounds on Google Maps, and googling [38] confirms it is a recognised district. I found various references to it in terms of slum improvement too, e.g., [39]. Thus this clearly meets GEOLAND's low bar of recognition. Still, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, and an often ignored part of GEOLAND is to consider whether this could be merged with a broader article. The appropriate article in this case would be Nairobi, but I think there is a good case that the Nairobi article is large enough and that district articles should thus be child pages. There may be a possibility of a district aggregation article that this could be merged with, but such an article does not exist. Thus, with no appropriate merge target, and also as per Rupples, this is a keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear from a couple web searches - once you get past all the real estate listings - that this is a notable Nairobi neighbourhood/place, even if it's not immediately obvious from the article. A novel, a parliamentary discussion all come up quite quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Zakaria

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

Fails NCREATIVE. Non-notable creative professional with no significant coverage. I also cannot find coverage of the subject’s creative works. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I took a look myself and I'm not seeing anything that would suggest they meet NCREATIVE either. I also couldn't find any detailed secondary coverage of their films. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watercolor Fairies

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

I believe this is the specific book this article is about. I can't find any sources on this book at all (other than places to buy it), for a fail of WP:NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Visual arts. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it needs sourcing. The Amazon listing shows significant interest in the book, and there it is spelled Watercolour Fairies in the British style. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sourcing is what we need to find. I did search with the British spelling (that’s how I found the publisher’s site). User reviews on Amazon (or Goodreads etc) do not contribute to notability, since they are WP:UGC. So right now there’s no sign of even one source. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find anything useful either, though I found a whole lot of people selling things that might be ripoffs of it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found one book review:
1. Buchhaus, Erich (March–April 2005). "Watercolour fairies: a step-by-step guide to painting fairies" (PDF). Cape Librarian. Vol. 49, no. 2. Department of Cultural Affairs & Sport, Government of the Western Cape. p. 37. ISSN 0008-5790. EBSCOhost 17564578. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  The review notes:
  RICHE, David and FRANKLIN, Anna
  Watercolour fairies: a step-by-step guide to painting fairies.- Search P., 2004.
  An imaginative and lavishly-illustrated guide to painting fairies in watercolour produced with easy-to-follow step-by-step illustrations and photographs. The author provides an outline of basic watercolour tools and techniques, revealing how to create a fairy world and various types of fairies. Included is an in-depth look at the techniques of four well-known fairy artists as well as twenty more contemporary fairy/fantasy artists. The subject is well presented and practical, and is likely to be inspiring to readers who wish to do their own illustrations.
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sleuthing! This review is on the light side, but I think it could count for 50% of an NBOOK pass, pending the other 50%. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the review Cunard found to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time before a consensus is arrived at.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOOK. One obscure review won't do it. Having a listing on Amazon contributes no notability whatsoever, otherwise we'd have to allow in practically every remaindered book in existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing to support NBOOK. SWinxy (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Bay Capital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment substantial changes done since nominated for deletion. See this DIFF. I do not think that what I've added fully establishes notability, but it does bring it closer to the borderline. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus here is to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FountainVest Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 05:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one from the SCMP is a portrait of FountainInvest. The sources are independent such as Reuters, the company has majority stakes in household names such as Wilson(Basketballs), Atomic (Skiing), Salomon. It has acquired (together with others) majority stakes in two of the best known ski manufacturers in the world and that's just one of their investment. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. And they are not household names. What it looks like is a brochure advertising article similar to the ones created by Tim Templeton. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me one of Tim Templeton to compare? I tried to find him over UserːTim Templeton, but he doesn't exist. And if you ever went Skiing or have played or watched Basketball or Tennis, you'd be rather familiar with those names. The outdoor clothes (Arc'terix) they also partly own are really popular as well. Have you ever gone past a Papa John's Pizza restaurant? In China its theirs as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked and most of his stuff has been deleted. But the type of article that being created are identical to the type of stuff he used to create. What they own is not a definition of notability. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle. He's referring to User:Timtempleton. I think I now get why I have multiple articles flagged. One that user's latest drafts was on Stone Point Capital which I have tried working on today so he may think I am that guy. Maybe I should stop thinking of even trying to recreate articles of drafts that were previously deleted since I have gotten into bigger messes doing so. - Imcdc Contact 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, China, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the references, looking at the first block of 14:

Ref 1 [40] Profile. WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 2 [41] Company report. Non-RS.
Ref 3 [42] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 4 [43] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND
Ref 5 [44] Taken from Tang speaking at a conference. Fails WP:ORGIND
Ref 6 [45] Press-releasse. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 7 [46] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 8 [47] Interview. Fails WP:ORGIND
Ref 9 [48] Comes from a press-release. Same news in multiple locations. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 10 [49] Monied raised. Fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 11 [sdcera.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=328&meta_id=36781] PDF. FountainVest Introduction, SDCERA Board Meeting. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
Ref 12 [50] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 13 [51] Company deal. Not idependent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 14 Same press-release as ref 13

There is not a single genuine source that confirms that the comany is notable. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. All the coverage is generated from company news sources, the founder and the a conference, as with any other ~~small private~~ company. scope_creep^Talk 19:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small private company? FountainVest was involved in the largest company buyout in Chinese history and co-owns three to four major and very well known sports companies that also have their own article. I believe you can watch any World Cup Skiing race and you will see their skis in the very vast majority of events if not all. They have Salomon AND Atomic. The current champion of the Ski World Cup Marco Odermatt uses Salomon shoes. And you can walk into any better sports wear store and you'll see their Arc'terix clothes. At least where I live, you see them all over and it is the well established class who wear such clothes.

And then you can watch any professional tennis tournament and you will see their rackets.

On the sources, of which you withhold their names... .we have

Wall Street Journal, on the establishment of its first fund of ca. 1 Bio.

Reuters (FountainVest declined to comment),

Reuters, (you call it interview, I call it notability, why does the founder get interviewed?),

South China Morning Post on the largest company buyout in Chinese history, which was Focus Media

FinanceAsia (no interview),

Bloomberg News (Paywall, but Bloomberg News) on the purchase of Papa John's China branch (Non-paywall link)

South China Morning Post On the eventual IPO of the sports companies Arc'Terix Atomic, Wilson etc.

Thats just some, in the references are more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this analysis. Ref 3 (the Reuters piece) says "FountainVest declined to comment" – you're saying they declined to comment in their own press release? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that seems to be branding and advertising. How does that make the company notable, exactly? Companies advertise their products, that is what they do, to make profit. Society, modern civilization is soaked in advertisement and its never been cheaper in history to advertise on a global scale. Its very easy and cheap to do. I can't see how that is a criteria for being notable. When you look at these references, for example, taking the Bloomberg "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT" It states in the headline "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT". When you do a search on that term, it comes up in multiple locations, with the exact same text, indicating its a press-release from the company. Press-releases are the lingua franca of company's. So its not unique, some journalists doing the hard of going out and find the facts. Social media did for them in their business in big way from 2008 onwards, although paywalls are enabling real journalism to take place now, but not for this lazy way of reporting. On the WSJ one it is a similar outcome. Its a press-release. The WSJ that has been comprehensively debunked for showing it takes advertising dollar as much as anybody else. And it the same with all the rest. They are poor. Lastly, notability is not inherited. I may have made a mistake on size, for which I apologize for (I'll score it out), but there is nothing of real quality in the sources here. They're mostly generic second-hand information from the company news desk. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are authored articles from perennial reliable sources not random press releases like from Reuters Staff or from the company itself. Then per the Establishing Notability linked by Imcdc below, FountainVest has way larger funds than 750 Million Dollars and closed its first around 1 Bio, and its fourth in 2022 at 2.9 Bio Dollars. It also holds by far more assets than the 1 Bio mentioned there. Besdie the aformentioned assests, it invested in 2009 in Sino, that launched Weibo the same year and which in 2017 overtook Twitter in market capitalization and by now is worth about 25 Bio. Dollars. FountainVests founder is Member of the Board at Weibo. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. The amount of money that organisation has hasn't been a criteria for notability since at least 2008. Your completly ignoring the type of references. Per WP:SIRS, they must be independent from the company. It is another debunked argument, that for example, if it comes from Reuters then its cast in platinum reliable. It is not and hasn't been for a long time. The quality of the references matter, where the information is coming from, whether or not its independent. If its coming from the company, then its not independent. A simple search shows the same. The same headlines appear in multiple locations, on multiple news sites, with the same wording, indicating its comes from the company and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are they not authored.

The Wall Street Journal is authored, by Nisha Gopalan and Ellen Sheng

The Wall Street Journal again by John Stoll on the purchase of the Auo Industry supplier Key Safety Systems

The first Reuters in authored by Kane Wu

The second an interview by George Chen

The Bllomberg news on the Papa Johns China branch purchase by Vinicy Chan und Cathy Chan

The Finacial Times on the largest buy out in Chinese history by Josh Noble

Variety by Patrick Fraser in 2022

The Hollywood Reporter by Rebecca Sun in 2016

The New York Times by Neil Gough on the Sale of Focus Media for 7.4 Bio.

On that next one I am not sure if they are a perennial reliable source. But the Financial Review and three authors seems a fairly researched.

The Australien Finance Review on a purchase and eventual IPO of the Australian Loscam has even three authors, Anthony Macdonald, Sarah Thompson and Kanika Sood.

Every each one is written by authors of agency, outlet known to be independent to FVP. If FVP bought shares of any of those it can be mentioned in Perennial sources as it is done in the case the South China Morning Post which is owned by Alibaba Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have not responded to my point about ref 3, which does not seem to be a press release as far as I can tell. I've also checked the second ref you labeled as a press release (ref 6) and cannot find any evidence that it's a press release either. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity#Establishing Notability. For further reference. - Imcdc Contact 01:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources listed above. I've checked a few, which seem to be independent reporting, not press releases. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are three of the sources discussed by Paradise Chronicle that establish notability:
1. Wu, Kane (2020-12-17). Feast, Lincoln (ed.). "China's FountainVest reaches first-close in new private equity fund - source". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  The article notes: "Founded in 2007, FountainVest has been an avid investor in China’s media and entertainment, sports and consumer-related sectors. In June, it led a $750 million fundraising of online tutoring startup Zuoyebang as the COVID-19 crisis spurs investor interest in education technology. In 2018, the firm teamed up with China’s ANTA Sports and internet giant Tencent Holdings to buy Finland’s Amer Sports, which owns a range of sports brands including Wilson and Arc’teryx, for $5.2 billion."
2. Rovnick, Naomi (2011-06-11). "Picking China's next winners". South China Morning Post. EBSCOhost 875105615. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  The article notes: "Frank Tang, chief executive of FountainVest Partners, a US$1 billion Hong Kong-based private equity fund, has bet the farm on China making its long-heralded transformation from the world's workshop into a consumer-driven economy. Tang founded FountainVest Partners in 2007 with a group of former colleagues at Singapore's sovereign-wealth fund Temasek Holdings, which was an anchor shareholder. Today, FountainVest Partners holds stakes in nine mainland companies, most of which Tang believes will profit from Beijing's plan to retool the economy."
3. Gopalan, Nisha; Sheng, Ellen (2008-11-14). "FountainVest launches China fund". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  The article notes: "FountainVest Partners raised around $950 million for its first fund, a China-focused private-equity fund, despite the turmoil in financial markets. In addition to Singapore's state-owned investment company, Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., FountainVest's backers include the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and other investors from Asia, Europe and North America."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FountainVest Partners (traditional Chinese: 方源資本; simplified Chinese: 方源资本) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verition Fund Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 05:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1: [52] Signs office lease. WP:PRIMARY Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
Ref 2 Form ADV" (PDF). SEC. Company docs. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 Moves its office. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent. Routine coverage.
Ref 4 [53] Press-release as its in multiple locations. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [54] Hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH routine coverage.
Ref 6 [55] WSJ article. About the last company. Not in-depth. Single paragraph. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 7 [56] Opening a new office. Fails [[WP:SIRS] Routine news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 8 [57] hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

These are the most routine news I've seen in a long time for supposed references. Hiring news, new offices, previous company and company docs. Not a single WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfies WP:NCORP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WPNCORP as nominator notes.

Let'srun (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cornish artists, architects and craftspeople

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Also, architects? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this list falls under "Lists of X of Y" and those guidelines are quite vague. This is a list of less than 50 names, mostly falling in the 19th and 20th century. The List of Cornish musicians and List of Cornish engineers and inventors are not robust either. I am unfamiliar with Cornwall, so can't judge the value of a list of Cornish people. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also List of Cornish philanthropists and List of Cornish geologists and explorers are sparsely populated. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete because categories exist and this is a glorified category. Dronebogus (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, architects are indeed artists, who are responsible for designing buildings. Builders and engineers actually construct them and deal with practical stuff. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal interpretation. Few people would consider architects to be artists (except for the Frank Lloyd Wrights of this world), so there are no lists with such an unusual agglomeration. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I know I'll get flak for this but this article has existed for 14 years, I'd like to see more policy-based reasons and support for deletion before hitting the Delete button.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cornwall nowadays is just a region at the southwest corner of England. Briefly skim our constitutional status of Cornwall article for an overview why administratively it's been just another part of England for centuries and how the Cornish language faded from common usage in the 18th century. Attempts to gain autonomy for Cornwall like Scotland or Wales have fizzled due to lack of local support.

We don't have lists like this for other regions or counties of England and there's no reason to believe a Cornish geologist, philanthropist or architect is going to be different from their other English counterparts. The list serves no purpose.

In short, this list fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, Wikipedia is not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". (Technically, this is a list, not a category but the notability discussion at WP:LISTN references WP:CROSSCAT and suggests the same rationale for deleting similar lists.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Uncontested, would not have needed two relists. Sandstein 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Need for Bushido

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources given do not show notability or SIGCOV. BEFORE shows mostly that ITEXISTS. Article is mostly a "book report" laden w/ fancruft. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Japan. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comics Bulletin source has SIGCOV. I removed bulk of the fancruft and obviously unreliable source. Time Waster's Guide seems to be a fan blog, not sure on its reliability. I think this comic has a potential to be notable. I will try digging through google Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 10:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion took place in 2005 and it was based on now-nonexistent guideline. Not worth looking through that.

I looked through around three pages of Google and found no reliable SIGCOV. Others may have a go at this.

FYI, this is timewaster's staff page [58]. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 10:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only a single SIGCOV source and none found with Google. Bensci54 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, previous AFD and attempted PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the WP:SILENCE speaks volumes. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Another Cringy Username,

In general, AFDs have seen lower participation over the past few months. I don't have the numbers on it but the number of editors who regularly participate in deletion discussions (not just come to discuss one or two articles) definitely seems lower than it did six months ago or a year ago. It's not unusual to have to close discussions like this one where one editor or even no editors have weighed in on whether or not an article should be deleted. But I do relist them because I've also seen 3 or 4 editors pop in after two or three relistings so you never know. But I think this one will not be relisted again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Any idea why? How would such an AfD close (as in keep, no-consensus, or delete)? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about 12-15 months ago, AFD was overloaded with AFDs on athletes, dozens and dozens nominated each day, given the newly formed guidelines on sports notability and the sides for Delete and Keep were pretty entrenched. I think after going through the same fierce arguments hundreds of times, most of the participating editors got understandably burned out on the process of coming to a consensus. That would explain lower participation in sports-related AFDs, maybe it had some after effect on AFDs in general. But I wouldn't be surprised if many editors actively participate for a year or two and then move on to less contentious areas of the project like creating and improving articles. One is less likely to run into conflict doing that, I think.

As for how to close a low participation deletion discussion, I've seen a number of different outcomes over the years. The policy most often cited though is WP:NPASR and that offers some guidance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athang

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

Fails WP:GNG, with one source being from IMDb (considered unreliable) and the other a blog. A draftification was contested. There are a few sources online, and I am personally unsure about whether or not the sources meet SIGCOV. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These [59][60][61][62] are some of the better sources online. I am leaning towards delete, but I'd like an evaluation from some more experienced editors. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were a film it'd only need "2 reviews" to pass (WP:NFILM), but since it is a web show it will need 3 WP:GNG sources. I read the 4 sources mentioned in this AFD. The first source looks good, I think that passes GNG. The other 3 sources aren't great. 2 and 3 contain a lot of quotes so probably aren't independent. 4 is a bit too positive, could be based on a press release, so not independent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Tipton

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

Non-notable musician. Sourcing is a list of performances and a biographical article. Gsearch only goes straight to streaming media sites. Has not had any charted singles or won major awards. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." I believe the Pitchfork Review covers this. I can add more sources Carolina Heart (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found another citation from Tiny Mix Tapes which is another reputable music publication Carolina Heart (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another from Alternative Press Carolina Heart (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another citation from Mixmag Carolina Heart (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another citation from Paper Magazine and inclusion in a list from The Guardian Carolina Heart (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I believe I've provided enough sources from established publications to pass notability. Majority of publication sources are notable enough that they have their own pages of decent length Carolina Heart (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pitchfork, Alt Press and other sources seem enough to establish notability. Rab V (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using WP:RSMUSIC to narrow to reliable sources, and excluding all interviews to keep independence there seem to be at least 2 sources the above discussion helped unearth for WP:GNG:
- Tiny Mix Tapes[63][64][65][66] - independent, reliable, sigcov (multiple reviews from multiple authors, some discussing artist's style in depth, and work in depth)
- Pitchfork[67] - independent, reliable, sigcov (discusses subject beyond work, and work in depth)

I stopped after finding 2, there may be more. There are also several interviews that are not independent but are otherwise reliable/sigcov

—siro χ o 05:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources are available to pass WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Feel free to create a Redirect to an appropriate article (no target page mentioned here). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wenche-Lin Hess

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Norway. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I could only find passing mention in one book, which mentions she finished 16th in a competition (the book discusses the athlete she knocked out, so very brief) Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added an article about her return to competition in 2019. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero independent sources containing SIGCOV. The newest source is just a couple passing mentions in an article about her partner's return to sport. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOLY and more broadly WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. but I'm hoping that these new sources mentioned in this AFD discussion can find their way into the article now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhu Singh

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

On Google search i found just two newspaper sources and that too talks about a single event of his death, definitely no important role. WP:ONEEVENT is applicable. Only source, used in article also have passing reference and nothing more about his biography is available in secondary sources. Hence it fails WP:GNG.Admantine123 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Admantine123 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs some love, but subject seems to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Here's some reliable sigcov [68]. Here's a book with some coverage [69]. These together may help [70][71]. There may also be a language divide here, these sources may not be reliable but point us in a direction: [72][73] —siro χ o 04:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sourcing provided by Siroxo - it's a bit light but it suggests a proper article can be written.

SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎ (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Sings

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

This is not separately notable from Colleen Ballinger. While the article is well referenced with reliable sources, these references do not demonstrate separate notability of the character from the performer. Given that this article is in fact longer than the article about Mrs. Ballinger herself, I propose that some content from this article should be merged into that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Clearly going nowhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, United States of America, and Fictional elements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – already enough overlap with Colleen Ballinger that WP:SPINOUT does not apply. small jars tc 03:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This AfD may have a bit of unintentional recency bias, as an apparent recent controversy may have obscured the fact that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT on its own. Note that many of the cited articles are about the character with only a passing reference to the performer's name, eg [74], or making clear a distinction of the character from the performer, eg [75]. Even if it wasn't notable on its own, it's an WP:OKFORK by content and length, (Overlap excluded, articles together are above 6000 words which would be the disqualifier), and also noting that this article predates the article on the performer. —siro χ o 04:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The character is independently notable, separate from its creator. It is the subject of thousands of YouTube videos, its own Netflix series and there are hundreds of WP:Reliable sources about the character rather than the creator. Compare Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note:Ssilvers is responsible for most of the content on both articles) This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We don't have a separate article for Lily Savage for instance. Miranda Sings is her only notable persona, and her fame is deeply intertwined to the character, to a greater degree than Barry Humphries was to Everage. It makes sense to cover both topics in a single lengthy article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have numerous other articles about comic characters (Alan Partridge from Steve Coogan, Mr Bean from Rowan Atkinson, Pee-wee Herman from Paul Reubens - the list goes on and on). The character passes GNG, and there is enough distance between character and creator to keep them separate. - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independently notable apart from its creator. As said above, there are many instances where a fictional character has its own article independent of its creator. Jack1956 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Genuinely surprised to see this nomination. I can't see any advantage to our readers in merging with the Ballinger article. Mentions above of the separate (and welcome) articles for the characters and creators of Dame Edna Everage and Mr Bean are very much ad rem in my view. Tim riley talk 16:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBC Balita Ngayon

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unable to find GNG-level sources for this news show. Recommend Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Couldn't find any WP:GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.‎. This article will be moved to Draft space where it can be improved as reliable sources are found. I suggest submitting it to WP:AFC for review. If it is moved prematurely to main space without significant improvements, it will likely be back at AFD and receive a different outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmal Selab

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

The subject is not the subject of significant sourced commentary in reliable sources. The article indicates the person is a lawyer and a politician, but there is nothing notable about his law career and as a politician, he has not held elected office, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Whpq (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Using google translate, existing sources are neither independent (statements by subject) nor sigcov (don't cover subject themself in any amount of detph). Cursory english language search shows nothing to aid. Also does not meet WP:NPOL per nom. —siro χ o 04:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
save it He is a famous and well known Afghan-politician and lawyer currently live in Germany. He is the nephew of Ahmad Shah Massoud which considered as Afghan national hero. Also He served 8 years as head of Ahmad zia massoud office during his vice presidency in Afghanistna. Please do not delete this page.

SincerelyParwiz ahmadi (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. However, for an article like this, we need independent & reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject of the article, if you are able to provide any. See WP:GNG and WP:BIO for more information. —siro χ o 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , I can provide you. please let me provide it. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable reference that I add now to the article , You can see "The resistance front against the Taliban has been formed". Industry Information Newspaper. 2021. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have significant coverage about Selab. That article is not about Selab, and just quotes him making statements about somebody else. -- Whpq (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can add other references, please give me time. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD normally is open for 7 days so there is still lots of time to add more references. But I note that you promised to do so since March 14 when you removed the PROD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @Whpq .I hope you are well and in good health. I would like to express my gratitude for your collaboration. I have found several new references and added them to the article. I am confident that there are more references available, but due to the Taliban's control and censorship in our country, many websites operating with Afghan domains have been shut down. Ajmal Selab is one of the staunch opponents of the Taliban and is working with the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan. I hope that upon seeing these references, you will be satisfied and reconsider removing this page. Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely, Parwiz Ahmadi Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly added sources to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - the subject might be notable enough as User:Parwiz ahmadi said but reference quality and coverage is lacking to encyclopedic standards. Needs further improvement but should not be deleted entirely. - Indefensible (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Using Google Translate, it seems the entirety of current sources essentially are able to establish that the subject was an assistant of a notable individual Ahmad Zia Massoud, that he was a member of the resistance in Afghanistan, and that he had a hand in constructing a mausoleum for a poet, Haidari wujodi. Everything else is dependent on the subject's words in interviews. SIGCOV can be pieced together from multiple sources. This article would become a minuscule stub based on current sources. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but user Indefensible's idea of a draft seems like the right course for such an article. I've retracted my above !vote —siro χ o 05:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
save it. Your criteria should be slightly different for a backward country like Afghanistan, where technology and mass media have a relatively short history. Many media outlets, including those operating with the .Af domain, were blocked by the Taliban, resulting in the loss of most references. In this section, I want to emphasize that Ajmal Selab is a prominent figure in Afghanistan. He has been involved in important government and political positions for years, particularly within the Jamiat-E-Islami, which is the strongest political movement in Afghanistan. He is also closely related to Ahmad Shah Massoud, the national hero of Afghanistan. The Afghan people have great respect for this family. In my opinion, the references I have provided are sufficient for this article. I understand that Wikipedia's criteria may be more extensive, but we should also consider the challenges faced by Afghanistan. We should not compare an Afghan politician with an American politician. I hope you keep the article in its original state. Thank you for your cooperation."

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Limited

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

WP:ORGCRITE states that, A notable company should follow WP:GNG, but this company's page doesn't meet this criterion. Deletion recommended. M.parvage (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M.parvage (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The report is reasonable decent reference created by an group of academic. That combined with the other two sources is more than than borderlines for an established company. *Delete Of the three references, 2 fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:SIRS. The other one is a 404. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on three of the sources provided by Worldbruce below, the first two and the magazine. None are great but in my opinion are sufficient for the purpose of establishing notabaility. Delete I agree with above, none of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would these, Ananda Shipyard exports largest ship by Bangladesh, signalling industry revival (2022), Ship-builder eating away Meghna 2019, মেঘনায় ভাসলো আনন্দ শিপইয়ার্ডের তৈরি জাহাজ ‘রাঙ্গাবালি’ 2018, Ananda Shipyard looks to rent out two ships to foreign clients 2014, Ananda to export its eighth ship, 2008 be considered significant coverage?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Those reference appear to be based entirely on announcements/PR so they fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the article, Ship-builder eating away Meghna, it is highly critical of the company. What would make you say that it is based on announcements/PR?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being highly critical doesn't mean it meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article relies on information and quotes provided by the company and their executives for some details but in general, there is next to zero in-depth information *about* the company (as required per CORPDEPTH). Most of the article is critical of the activity along the foreshore and the lack of proper enforecement. In my view this reference falls short of NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any search for sources is complicated by the facts that the company has changed its name, is sometimes refereed to by an initialism, the name is not always transliterated the same way, and discussion of it is most likely to be found in the Bengali language. The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group. There's plenty of news out there that is critical (such as an Anti-Corruption Commission investigation). Participants should consider the possibility that the company may not want a Wikipedia article about them that they can't control. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group." As User:WordBounce blamed that with a wrong evedence; it must go beyond Wikipedia:Respect privacy PARVAGE ^talk! 04:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a close connection: This was accused by User:WordBounce. However, I was previously stated that Shaif Zahir was my first article, and I was simply trying to improve it. Through my research, I discovered Ananta Group, then I found the founder of Ananta Group, Humayun Zahir, and a project of Ananta Group. As a result, I included those information to UCB and Madani Avenue.

Hope you understand. I would appreciate it if you would not mention this accusation again. Especially there is no connection with this topic. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second-largest private shipbuilder out of hundreds in the country. It has built ships for the Navy, for the Coast Guard, and for export. Common sense tells us they are likely to be notable. In addition to the article "Ship-builder eating away Meghna" that Vinegarymass911 has put forward, other evidence of notability is:
- Abedin, A S M Arshadul (2007). "Warship Building in Bangladesh, Problems and Prospects: Analysis and Recommendations". NDC Journal. 6 (1): 91–111. ISSN 1683-8475. (when the company was called Ananda Builders)
- Iqbal, K. Shahriar; Zakaria, N. M. Golam; Hossain, Kh. Akhter (December 2010). "Identifying and Analysing Underlying Problems of Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh". Journal of Mechanical Engineering. 41 (2): 147–158.
- Zakaria, N. M. G. (October–December 2012). "Moving Forward with Export Oriented Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh". Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C. 93 (4): 373–382. doi:10.1007/s40032-012-0034-0.
- "Shipbuilding in Bangladesh". CPA News. Vol. 3, no. 1. April 2018. pp. 6–12. (Transliterates the company name without the final "a" and refers to it by its initialism, ASSL)
- Rahman, Sajjadur (29 July 2013). "Islami Bank stung by shipbuilder". The Daily Star.
- "ACC grills 7 bankers over Ananda Shipyard loan scam". Prothom Alo. 22 December 2014.
Keep based on the sources detailed in my preceding comment. If the community can't be convinced that it should be a stand-alone article, then at a minimum the topic should be merged to Shipbuilding in Bangladesh. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I note Highking has changed their !vote, relisting to consider sources presented by Worldbruce on 16 June.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Daniel's relisting rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide opportunity for expansion and addition of sources. Right now I can't even tell from the article how old this company is. BD2412 T 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the company is 40 years old. One can find in Abedin's 2007 article (and other places) that it was founded in 1983. That information was also in the Wikipedia article until it was gutted of verifiable information, with inadequate explanation, by a 9-edit wonder just eight edits before it was nominated for deletion. The article certainly needs work, but Articles for Deletion is not cleanup, and the place in which the article is most likely to be improved is mainspace. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of stuff if you look for it.

As Worldbruce noted above, there are financial scandal(s) not mentioned in the article.^{[76][77][78][79][80]} Worldbruce also initiated this investigation:

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 198#Sharif Zahir

Many thanks to @Worldbruce

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Users may mess Ananda Group with Ananta Group PARVAGE ^talk! 04:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this! Just to add to the confusion, it looks like there are two very different companies named Ananda Group:[81],[82]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all the links in my comment above are to articles definitely about this shipbuilding company and not a similarly named entity.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Ananda group is from Bangladesh and another one is Indian. But you rightly said that articles definitely about this shipbuilding company, a subsid of Bangladeshi Ananda group. PARVAGE ^talk! 05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article using mainly sources found in this discussion. The article had at some point been cut back to a stub and needed to be rebuilt, and I've tried to do that. It could use an infobox but I've done what I can.

Commenting editors identified a number of articles that substantially discuss the shipyard, including the ones on scandal reporting from @Worldbruce like this[83], the TBSNews article[84] and the NDC Journal article[85]. I've also included some cites provided by @Vinegarymass911. The article about the Meghna river is also substantial coverage, and although I recognize that questions were raised above about its independence there's plenty of independent reporting in the article as well.

My main goal was to raise this beyond a draftify candidate, since it should have been beyond peradventure that this company met notability requirements. Not everything made the cut. If the tagged editors want to have a look perhaps they can find a place for other cites they identified. Comment added by user:Oblivy at 9:52, 26 June 2023‎ Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NeST (Nepalese Society in Trondheim)

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

Not notable. Tagged as such since creation without improvement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Nepal, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I added some more references but I couldn't find anything past mirror sites and promotional websites. Per nominator, not notable. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 14:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus turns out to be that this should be kept then the article title should be changed to the non-abbreviated name. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue Bubblebath 5

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

Was PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. This is separate from the "Analogue Bubblebath IV" AfD, but the same sequence of events has brought it here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NALBUM, and the rationale the IP used "Also if you delete this article there has to be consistency with other EP/single articles, inc others by Aphex Twin." is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and irrelevant. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard_D._James_discography#Extended_plays_2 as WP:ATD-R. I found no reviews in a before to satisfy GNG. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I also found some coverage of the time the album went up on eBay, talking about its rare status ([86] [87] [88]; last two mostly identical), so I'm now inclined to weak keep. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Another similar reference to what Miraclepine found [89], and a passing reference [90]. Both of those are in major publications. Since WP:NALBUM references the GNG, and only mentions excluding things like press releases etc, this puts me in the weak keep camp as well. —siro χ o 09:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: I can't locate any mention of the album or the band in that Vice link. Don't know if it's worth the trouble to fix, since you mention it only as a passing mention, but I know that Vice URLs can be a bit slippery, so I'm wondering if perhaps you meant to link something else. -- Visviva (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Miraclepine, if you have changed the outcome you seek, please cross out the one that no longer reflects your opinion so things are absolutely clear to the next admin who reviews this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above, otherwise redirect to discography per nom. Policy-based rationale follows.
First, the applicable rules: Point 1 of WP:NALBUM affords a presumption of notability if The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. The guideline further clarifies that This criterion includes published works in all forms excepting only school newspapers and press releases. Confusingly, NALBUM seems be operating from a different understanding of what notability is than WP:N, as it goes on to state that Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article (my emphasis). Thinking too hard about the intended relationship between these guidelines is giving me a headache, so I'll just leave it there.
In addition, WP:EDITCONSENSUS reminds us that Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.
Next, the sources: The sources actually cited/linked in the article are either UGC or self-published. But the above-cited sources seem much better: [91], [92] and [93] are three articles that appear to be entirely about the article subject and to be published in independent reliable sources. In addition, this piece is not wholly about the article subject but has a solid paragraph of coverage, which clears the "nontrivial" bar of NALBUM and the GNG. In sum, the article subject seems to solidly meet the requirements of NALBUM point 1.
Conclusion: The article should probably be kept, under both NALBUM and the GNG, because the EP has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in what appear to be reliable independent sources. However, NALBUM also calls on us to think hard about whether we really have enough material to support a substantial article here. In this respect I would lean toward merging/redirection, as the total sum of information that can be harvested from these sources is not all that large. But I think there is an overriding concern here. Dismissing the anon's argument as WP:OTHERSTUFF misses the mark. As EDITCONSENSUS recognizes, our best guide to the consensus forged over time among knowledgeable editors as to how coverage in this area should be organized is how editors have actually organized that coverage. The existence of similar articles might reasonably be discounted when considering whether to delete or keep, but is worthy of considerable weight when considering whether to keep or merge/redirect. Therefore I believe a keep is preferable to a redirect here. -- Visviva (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The discussion went back and forth a bit, but rough consensus in the end is that, even taking into account the newly-added sources, the organisation isn't notable. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Unitarian Conference

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

notability, no sources, organization no longer seems to exist UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited is the organization's website, which says "Congratulations! You have successfully set up your website!" but has no actual content. If there are reliable independent sources, they need to be added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck the above due to Eastmain's addition of references. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and an archive of the group's website. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the references added to the article by Eastmain that show reliable sources coverage in books and newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization no longer exists, from what I can see. All of the references added seem to point to an organization that just "disappeared". If we do keep it, I think we should only do so if we update the article to use the past tense. Otherwise, we're suggesting that it's still an active organization, which doesn't appear to be true. (further edit) I found this Facebook post on what was their official Facebook group that seems to provide evidence that it no longer exists: https://www.facebook.com/groups/americanunitarian/posts/10167394170830074/ SilverAnsible (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thank you Eastmain for adding references. If it no longer exists, WP:NTEMP. Bruxton (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that references have been added, the article looks good enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Now have multiple citations. CastJared (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked WP:CIR issues. scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So 3 references got to do with the name of the organisation, which is WP:PRIMARY, 1 around the trademark, which is the name again, and one Ref 1, which comes from the organisation itselfs. 4 routine references and a WP:PRIMARY ref. None of these reference are independent and they fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS. They are absolutely junk and don't prove the organisation is notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is from The Chicago Tribune and mentions the setting up of the organisation here, reference 3 is about their opposition to gay marriage,ref 4 is about the organisation changing their name which is obviously relevant. Not great coverage but it is independent and relevant imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best you say about it, is that it verifies it existed, but the coverage is routine. Establishing an organisation and changing their name have been considered to fail WP:SIRS for about a decade. Its routine coverage. And its an affiliated news story for the Tribune. scope_creep^Talk 23:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with scope_creep^Talk on this one. These reference don't prove the most important part of notability - significance. My vote doesn't change based on these sources. SilverAnsible (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't get all the keeps. The reference being held up as the best one is just a passing mention. The entirety of what the Chicago Tribune says is this: Two years ago, dissidents formed the American Unitarian Conference, saying liberal politics had overtaken the church. The conference's president, Virginia attorney David Burton.... The entirety of the Bangor Daily News article says David Burton of the American Unitarian Conference, a group calling the church to return to its theological roots, said Unitarian Universalist is a religion that does not have much religion left in it. Both of these then have a quote from Burton... and that's it. No information about the church other than, effectively, it's mission statement. The other two real sources cited, the Spokesman Review and the Gadsen Times ... are the same AP article. So it changed its name. That's clearly the best source of the bunch in terms of depth, and it's a pretty routine announcement that was published because the UU is notable, not because the AUC is notable. It merits inclusion in the UU article, not the creation of a separate one about an entity we can say almost nothing about. My own search for sources found a lot more copies of Wikipedia than anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches if there's anything relevant to be merged. Otherwise delete. Sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, consider sources added and the suggestion to Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - two solid references establish notability. ~~The Associated Press (AP) article in the Bangor Daily News provides a reliable, non-trivial reference for the article.~~ There's also the Associated Press article from the Gadsden Times about the dispute with the main Unitarian Universalist Association.

Other refs: the shorter AP article from the Spokane Spokesman-Review doesn't add much. The Chicago Tribune article does a good job of covering the theological issues but is not about this organization. danielharper.org is a blog.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., thank you @Eastmain! A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches after closer reading of the AP article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Gadsden Tiems	~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	AP	Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	✘ No
Bangor Daily News		AP	Entirety of coverage consists of "a group calling the church to return to its theological roots"	✘ No
Spokesman-Review	~ Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	AP	Name dispute with other minor coverage in non-indpendent quote from group president	✘ No
Chicago Tribune	In paper's voice	Chicago Tribune	~ Discusses formation and a single belief, with short statement from from group president	~ Partial
Yet Another Unitarian Universalist	Cites this Wikipedia article	Personal blog		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment It appears that editor @Siroxo: has made a source analysis table that shows that there is no valid sourcing on the article, but not actually made a comment or a !vote in support of the table entry. Bit odd I think, but I guess its ok, as the intent is there. scope_creep^Talk 16:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to leave a comment but got caught up making the table. Merge seems appropriate. —siro χ o 22:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the SECOND "Final relist". I should not have relisted this discussion again. However, I don't know how to revert a relisting so I'll just apologize and promise not to let this happen again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after considering new sources, the article does not have reasonable enough sources. Merging the article could happen as suggested (really it seems as though a number of Unitarian stubs could be combined into a singular article about Unitarian conferences/groups/organisations but that feels a but a bit off topic).

I think the article would need a significant amount of information added by new sources to be a constructive addition. Pedantical (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would need to pass NCORP and it doesn't even approach it. I agree with Siroxo's source analysis. I don't think that there is meaningful content to be merged. List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches does not mention this topic so a redirect would make sense only after the fact, i.e. after someone has hypothetically added it to the list, but it's questionable if it should be included in the list in the first place, when considering WP:CSC -- considering this AfD, as this is now provenly a non-notable organization, and if the list is a CSC-type-1 list (every member notable or a promising red link), which appears to be the case, it should not be included in the list. Therefore the article should not be redirected. Or merged. It should be deleted.—Alalch E. 08:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to EMusic. This is not a strong consensus but I don't think relisting the discussion another week will bring in more participants. I'm not sure about this but I think after a Merge is done, the article could be moved to Draft space rather than be deleted so that it could continue to be improved if there is an experienced editor who wants to take that on. I've never closed a discussion with that Merge, then Draft/Redirect option but if this violates Wikipedia policy, I'm sure someone will tell me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chasan

AfDs for this article:

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

Promo article, lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning move to draft. I am not seeing any clearly independent sources used in the article that also provide in-depth coverage. That said, I do think that the aggregate of coverage in some sources (particularly regarding a controversial property development in Hawaii which is covered in the cited sources but not reflected in the article) could yield evidence of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Music, Law, Internet, Websites, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to eMusic. Individual does not meet WP:BIO on their own, but there's some information about the history of eMusic here that is not included in that article. —siro χ o 06:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to eMusic, merge any necessary info to eMusic as per siro. This article was created by user "Guruvie" which is both a presumed nickname of Chasan and also a trademark once owned by him. Major blocks of text have been added by SPAs. The article is notably void of independent sources to support the bio. Lamona (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with many of the points made by @BD2412, and now that the subject’s role in the widely covered controversial Hawaii property development is added, the article clears the bar for encyclopedic notability. Coverage includes independent sources such as Billboard Magazine, Business Town, Maui Time, Maui Public Radio and more. To @Lamona’s point: I would agree if the current text of the article was from @Guruvie, however it’s pretty clear that the article has been rewritten and cited reliably since then and that user hasn’t edited the page in over 10 years. It is also worth noting that the result of the first nomination for AfD here was a keep and given the Hawaii section, he has only become more notable since the article’s creation. Editchecker123 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm seeing editors advocating Deletion, Draftification, Merging, Redirection and Keeping. So, no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editchecker123, I disagree that the article has been re-written post Guruvie. In fact, that account, and two other SPA accounts, contributed significantly to the article even after the first AFD. That AFD, btw, was closed by a now-blocked account. Much of the activity on the article has been cleanup, as is often the case, and removal of poor content. The "controversy" in Hawaii is not about him, and he is mentioned in the articles but that is all. His book is self-published and sells for $2.99 - even at that, it is not in the top 100 in a very small category. That saved Amazon page and the info about the book was added by a IPV6 SPA, and it probably had to be done the very day that the book appeared on Amazon. BTW, that page says "Our best-selling new and future releases" and the Amazon page predates the actual sales date by about 10 days. (Amazon page=September 20, 2022, publication date=October 3, 2022. I think it's pretty clear that the book was not a best seller before it was published. Lamona (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading the sources I agree in-part with this, I went back through the entire article today and edited it to make sure the copy was not exaggerating the sources. It feels in a good place now from that perspective. I was also able to find 3 in-depth independently written profiles of Mark Chasan which addresses BD2412 and your other notes above: 1) Business Town from the 1990s, 2) Maui Times from the 2010s, and 3) Troora Magazine from the 2020s. To the point on Maui, many of the articles are directed at both the project and him personally (such as this and this). Overall on his notability, he did found eMusic which was a pioneer in its time according to multiple cited sources listed in the article, he was involved in its IPO, the site is still around today, and we have not debated that fact. It would seem that alone would be enough for an encyclopedic entry, given WP:BIO:

• Overall Criteria 2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" (eMusic in its entirety would fill this)

• Creative Professionals Criteria 2: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" (eMusic streaming vs. CD purchases would fill this)

• Creative Professionals Criteria 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" (the controversial property development in Maui would fill this given the amount of Hawaii press it generated) Editchecker123 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to eMusic. I was asked to come here and comment, since I commented on the original AfD in 2009. I don't have a strong feeling about this article, except that it should not be deleted. The best solution would probably be to merge information about him to eMusic. And I do mean "merge information about him", not just redirect. My hesitation to say "keep" is that while the article has many sources, they are pretty much all minor or local; I'm not seeing the major news coverage that would lead me to an undisputed "keep". He gets a mention in a Washington Post article; that's about it. As for the dispute about his proposed development in Maui, that appears to be entirely a local, neighborhood situation that didn't attract much notice even in the rest of the state. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to TV Mania. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bored with Prozac and the Internet?

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The only source cited is the band's website. I couldn't find any secondary sources. JMB1980 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, England, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[94][95][96][97][98] is everything I could find on the album (the last is a passing mention but might be worth having if this gets kept). Personally, I don't think this is enough and the article should be redirected, but if more coverage is uncovered then that could easily change. As for a redirect target, I think TV Mania is also lacking and should probably be merged into Duran Duran, but that's a whole other discussion and TV Mania is otherwise the most obvious and appropriate target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources are focused on the band rather than the album. Consequently, a merger or redirect would make more sense. JMB1980 (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge. Currently it's borderline on WP:NALBUM/GNG. But, even if it turns out there's enough SIGCOV, the topic of TV Mania and this album are inextricably linked, and both articles would improve if handled as one. —siro χ o 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There is some coverage of the album ([99] USA Today, [100] Mxdwn, [101] Rolling Stone interview) but if TV Mania's only release is this album, it seems reasonable to cover this in context of the TV Mania article per points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:MERGEREASON. As an aside for the TV Mania article, looking through Google Books and News shows plenty of coverage from Billboard, the above USA Today article and a few other promising sources.

Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Majeski

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Miami New Times, KT Network is paid/sponsored coverage. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - so many low-quality references -- do 10 ten-percent refs add up to one good 100% ref?? I spent a lot of time looking at them and looking for more.

I am familiar with the local Princeton, NJ publications. They are reliable but so very locally-focused that I hesitate to consider them.

This person is working hard to become famous for being famous and has almost made it.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, Internet, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent & reliable sources in article (all coverage is paid or interviews or both), no luck on google. Beyond notes in nom, note that SFGate link is also labeled sponsored and attributed to "Ascend Media". —siro χ o 07:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 16:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Grigsby

AfDs for this article:

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

Was redirected to American Idol (season 2)#Top 12 finalists by User:Bgsu98, then restored by User:Jpcase with the rationale: "Has released multiple albums since he was on Idol. I'm not sure that redirecting this is the correct course."

The redirect was restored by User:Onel5969, with the rationale: "Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG".

The article was then restored by User:Aspects with the rationale: "rv redirect that was already contested and per WP:BRD, there should be a WP:MERGE discussion or an WP:AFD."

The previous AfD was closed on largely procedural grounds, due to a rapid-fire nomination of many other American Idol contestants at the same time. The only genuine keep rationale offered was due to a (now inactive) WikiProjects own guideline which never reached the status of an actual notability guideline. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER. Should be, at the very least, redirected to American Idol (season 2)#Top 12 finalists, which is what I tried to do originally. Additionally, I just took another look at the article, and there is no end of unsourced BLP statements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm generally in favor of keeping articles about Idol top 12 finalists if they have gone on to release music after the series, as Grigsby has done. Grigsby does not seem to have maintained a great deal of notability in the years since he was on Idol, but he very easily passes the WP:GNG and, by extension, also passes WP:NSINGER on the basis of criteria #1. While the current version of the article does not demonstrate significant coverage, a simple Google or ProQuest search shows that numerous news articles from reliable sources have covered Grigsby (I'm seeing well over 150 on ProQuest, and there are undoubtedly many more that are not included on ProQuest). --Jpcase (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. To participants, please don't just assert sources exist and point to internet search results but provide links in the AFD discussion so that they can be verified as helping provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(update based on below: Keep) Comment. Here's some coverage, that while related to the show is indeed about the subject:
- "During his days on the show, Grigsby's style could be defined by two simple concepts: a hat on the head, and the color blue on the body. "He's basically a hat person and he'll wear any kind," says stylist Siggins. "We totally embraced it," adds Banowetz, who says Grigsby's "minimal hair" helped with the hats. "He looked great in them." ... followed by a quote from subject.
  - via DRESS YOU UP. People, 00937673, May2003 Extra, Vol. 59, Issue 17
- "Fourteen million viewers of Fox's American Idol who called in decided to bounce Charles Grigsby from the competition Wednesday night. Grigsby, 24, a part-time supermarket clerk from Oberlin, Ohio, had sung You Can't Win from The Wiz on Tuesday's movie-themed performances.
  - via 'Idol' bumps Grigsby By: Kurt Jensen, USA Today, MAR 20, 2003

—siro χ o 07:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Heldenfels, R.D. (2003-04-08). "'Idol' Contestant Has No Regrets - 24-Year-Old Oberlin Man Who Was Voted off Show Is Thankful for TV Exposure and Business Contacts". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "Charles Grigsby didn't want to audition for American Idol. Now he's very glad his friends made him do it. After all, the 24-year-old Oberlin resident could still be working in a grocery store and making demonstration recordings with friends, hoping for a big break. Instead, he got TV exposure and went farther than most contenders in the talent competition, which continues tonight at 8 on Fox. He expects to sing the national anthem at an Indians game in May. On Monday, he was calling from New York City, where he was taking part in a tour of shopping malls with other American Idol contestants."
2. Macias, Chris (2004-08-24). "A few votes short of an 'Idol' - Charles Grigsby joins talent-show finalists on tour". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: " Now that he's a member of the exclusive "American Idol" finalists club, Grigsby gets to be showcased again. He's part of the American Idols Live! tour, which will play to screaming, Glow Stick-waving fans at Arco Arena on Thursday. "
3. Knific, Melissa (2003-07-11). "Ohioan Living Dream Through Tour". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "After the tour, Grigsby, who says he eats, sleeps and breathes music, will continue his pursuit of a career in music. He also has considered acting. Since the second season of Idol began, he's collected names of producers, managers, directors and actors. He hopes the tour will allow him to continue networking. Growing up in a small town didn't keep Grigsby from seeking opportunities."
4. Washington, Julie E. (2003-04-01). "Life after 'Idol' far from idle". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "Charles, who is 24 and lives in Oberlin, was the second Idol voted off the Top 12 island on March 19. His voice had bothered him all week, so he picked what he thought would be an easy song, "You Can't Win," sung by Michael Jackson in "The Wiz." ... But Charles passed through to the next phase of the competition, which brought with it a whirlwind of promotional fun - a Coke commercial, appearances on "The Today Show," "Access Hollywood," "Entertainment Tonight" and "Inside Edition," plus an interview with People magazine."
5. Sheats-Johnson, Jamie (2003-08-08). "American Idols Live". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "Charles Grigsby, 24: Grigsby, the youngest of seven children, is a self-taught singer who's own American idol is Stevie Wonder."
6. Gatta, John (2009-11-06). "Boss at The Q, American Idols in Lorain". The Morning Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "Oberlin native Charles Grigsby and Shaker Heights native Scott Savol will appear at the event today along with the group, the Croonerz. Since his days on Idol, Grigsby released a self-titled album, ..."
7. Maglio, Lou (2016-02-17). "Charles Grigsby: Journey from Northeast Ohio to American Idol". WJW. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09.
  The article notes: "He has performed locally and around the world since leaving Idol. He currently lives in Chicago where he joined a church and was baptized. Grigsby says “knowing the Lord” has made him a better person."
8. Margolis, Kim (2010-05-05). "Ohio's former 'American Idol' hopefuls". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-07-09 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Charles Grigsby: Was a Top 12 finalist in Season 2. Performed on air in 2003. Resident of Oberlin, in northern Ohio. Worked at a grocery store at the time of his audition. Had a self-titled release, “Charles Grigsby," in 2005."
9. Compton, Josette (2003-04-16). "Charles Grigsby Isn't the 'American Idol,' but He Is a Star". Call and Post. ProQuest 238517727.
  The article notes: " Charlie Grigsby, the humble 24-year-old singer from Oberlin, was one of 12 finalists on the much-watched television show, "American Idol 2," which has become more famous than it's season premiere last summer. ... Now that Grigsby is no longer a part of the American Idol entourage, he and Vanessa Olivarez, along with four finalists from last year, will enjoy a mini-concert tour sponsored by Coca-Cola starting Friday in New York. ... Like many driven Clevelanders who have become national celebrities, Grigsby says that he also understands that he must leave the Midwest to make his dreams come true. Appearing on NBC's "Today" and CNN is just the beginning of his journey to the top."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Charles Grigsby to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue Bubblebath IV

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

Was PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NALBUM, and the rationale the IP used "Also if you delete this article there has to be consistency with other EP/single articles, inc others by Aphex Twin." is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and irrelevant. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xclusive Yachts

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

Routine coverage, KT Network of Khaleej Times is a paid article. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Arab Emirates. Skynxnex (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is a bit more than routine coverage in this but I'm wary of it given what's stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Entrepreneur. There's some other coverage I've been able to find that seems more like thinly veiled advertising and I haven't been able to find anything that'd make this article meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to Day Trade for a Living

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

Paid coverage; no independent reviews of this book found. Fails WP:NBOOK. US-Verified (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks for the ping, Wikipedia:Notability (books) requires tow independent sources which Investopedia and Business Insider are not paid. Singularitywiki (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Singularitywiki - see Reliable sources/Perennial sources (a.k.a. "WP:RSP" -- it's a useful list especially when working with marginally notable articles may rely on iffier sources. Investopedia is listed as a bad source; it even gets its own Wikipedia shortcut: WP:INVESTOPEDIA.

I've seen Business Insider on my newsfeed and I've wondered about it. For this AfC, I started researching its reliability. Business Insider is listed at WP:RSP as "Insider" (the parent company), not "Business Insider"; it also gets its own shortcut: WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. It's been the subject of 2 lengthy RfCs which closed with no consensus:

and 11 other discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard - possibly a record. It's generally viewed as iffy and inconsistent.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author's bio is listed at Articles for deletion/Andrew Aziz

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. Skynxnex (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. See table below. —siro χ o 09:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
BI "license to print money"	interview with author	~ WP:BI	doesn't even mention this book, just links to amazon	✘ No
bi books		~	~ barebones, most significant note is "Aziz explains how day trading works, how to choose stocks, how to choose a day trading platform, and more." rest is less detailed repetition	~ Partial
investopedia classes			doesn't mention book	✘ No
yahoo gobankingrates		gobankingrates	small amount of data about ratings and rankings of book	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per siroxo's detailed source analysis above. I think that it is clear that the referencing except Insider are clearly not SIGCOV. For Business Insider, whether it is a WP:RS in this circumstance is complicated- the RSP section notes that There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture). This is a case that falls under finance instead of culture sections, so the reliability is iffy (I will disclaim that in the latest RfC a year ago, which is specifically for news reporting, I voted option 1/2). Moreover, I do no think that it meets SIGCOV per GNG or constitute as a full-length review per WP:NBOOK#1, as the content is very short at 130 words and part of a listicle. Overall, because there are reliability and SIGCOV concerns with Insider, the current sourcing very weak, even if one generously assumes it counts, that is still only one source. Unfortunately, my search on Google and other reviewing websites (Kirkus, PW, and Booklist) failed to find suitable sources and only unreliable ones like this. As other NBOOK criteria are also not met, I am at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like VickKiang, I checked the usual places, found nothing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Aziz (trader)

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

Paid coverage in Forbes Councils, KT Network of Khaleej Times. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed KT and Forbes (was a profile page, not a paid source really), and added few recent rs. Should meet Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, having two independent rs. Thanks for the ping. Singularitywiki (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - one of the author's books is listed at Articles for deletion/How to Day Trade for a Living

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Iran, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG, currently article has no sources that fulfill needs see table below. —siro χ o 08:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
business insider bio	~ largely interview	~ WP:BI		~ Partial
[102] marketwatch			very little about subject, it's about trading	✘ No
himalayan times	~ quote attributed to subject's expedition leader, photo credited to subject			~ Partial
style.yahoo		gobankingrates	~	✘ No
business insider books		~ WP:BI	snippet about a book	✘ No
yahoo finance money experts	interview	gobankingrates	~	✘ No
Investopedia coursees		~	about course	✘ No
yahoo finance day trading via benzinga	~ mostly quote		not ABOUT subject	✘ No
gobankingrates 100		gobankingrates	~	✘ No
gobankingrates 100 at yahoo		gobankingrates	~	✘ No
business insider Career tips	~ references other BI article	~		✘ No
gobankingrates 3 things				✘ No
Money Times	mostly interview		~ mostly interview	✘ No
SSRN paper	by subject			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per siroxo's fantastic source assessment table. I don't count interviews towards SIGCOV, so the Himalayan Times and Business insider bio sources fail in my books. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks to Siroxo's source examination. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Convent School, Prayagraj

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with all sources being related to the school. There was an AfD discussion in 2013, which closed as keep, before the RfC on secondary schools that reached a consensus that they are not inherently notable. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, India, and Uttar Pradesh. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources cited are primary. Need SIGCOV in independent secondary sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one that fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linkme

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

Paid coverage (guest posts) in LA Weekly, KT Network of Khaleej Times, Vents, BI Africa, US Weekly. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read about 10 sources, and they all have problems. Some are way too positive and hypey, some are just flat out a sales pitch, and some are quite obviously written by a "guest contributor" or say things like "The content featured in this article is brand produced.". Unable to find any independent content, so appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot meet GNG --DH22 Mim (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. The references are all typical PR. scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/human-givens-therapy

[1]