Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 28	October 30 >

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. Withdrawn. The article still needs work, but after updates I think there is probably enough for notability. If there isn't, a redirect to Mosaic theory (US law) is certainly fine. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halkin v. Helms

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

Notability concerns. No secondary sources, just a case summary. I see two cases Halkin v. Helms (one from 1978 and one from 1982) and cannot tell which one is being discussed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – seems to be a notable state-secrets case: see [1] (pgs. 857–858), [2] (pgs. 13–17), and several books available through the Internet Archive. (The 1978 ruling and the 1982 ruling both stem from the same case, and both are discussed in the sources above.) Meets the GNG, although I can see how that might not have been obvious. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the 1978 case, ν. The article needs more work but it's a landmark case so we should have an article for it. Auden Mays (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like this userfied or move to draft, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Colby

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

Notability concerns. Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, the references are blogs and his own school's website. Winning the USTA under-18 National Clay Court Championships is a sign he might become notable, but there isn't enough to support an article today. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won one of the most prestigious Junior tournaments and participated in the US Open Boys for singles and doubles. Playing in a Grand Slam at any level is a big deal. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Fails NTENNIS and hasn't really got enough SIGCOV for GNG. Yet. The potential is there so it may well be WP:TOOSOON to delete. A draft is the best option. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. If playing in a Grand Slam at any level would be a big deal then there would be articles written about him. Alvaldi (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Iffy★Chat -- 10:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based off of the sources in the article and what I could find online, this individual appears to fail WP:BASIC. Since he also fails WP:NTENNIS, this is a delete for now. We don't have a crystal ball to see if he will become notable in the future; we should not draftify an article as a backdoor to deletion if those sources fail to emerge over the next six months. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shital Kakkar Mehra

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

Product of an undisclosed paid editor (interested administrators can request evidence if necessary) of a businessperson that does not meet the general notability guideline or biographies guideline. While the subject ostensibly has many sources brought up in a prior search, none of the sources are actually about the subject: they are either highly promotional and non-independent or just sources that mention the subject or had the subject as an author. Bringing this to AfD to guard against future recreations. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 15:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic confusion of people who are columnist. Writing in reliable sources about other topics doesn't make subjects notable. The sources have to talk about them and their work in an independent and in-depth way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 22:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaultage 78

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

Obscure local compilation mostly featuring non-notable bands and on a non-notable label. Can find no reliable and significant coverage beyond basic track listings; was able to find a single blog review [3], while the album is occasionally mentioned very briefly in histories of the bands included, such as [4]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. The two bluelinked bands in the article are certainly notable, but gained their notability after this album was released. It's unlikely that this album got any notice outside of Brighton at the time (it seems like it wasn't even sold outside the town, so it's unlikely the London-based media would have taken any notice of it and reviewed it) so the chances of finding in-depth coverage outside of the local newspaper is remote. Richard3120 (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clpo13_(talk) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boost (chocolate bar)

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

Not finding much coverage via web search. It's difficult because this product isn't commonly present in my local markets, but this looks like it may not be notable? —valereee (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable chocolate bar (admittedly, not one that I particularly like, but that's besides the point). Despite "boost" being a fairly broad term, there are many hits on google books as well as on normal web searches. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly highly notable in the UK. Plenty of sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of Cadbury's core chocolate bars in the UK, and found most places that chocolate is sold. I tried to clean up the convoluted history a bit and add some more sources. the wub "?!" 01:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good work, The Wub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, especially with the additional sources added recently. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. --Devokewater ^(talk) 13:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it clearly passes GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this individual is not quite notable enough for an article yet, although that could change in the future (and the article can always be restored). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Parsons

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

Non-notable local politician. County commissioner is not the sort of position that affords automatic notability under WP:NPOL, so we're left with the GNG, which Parsons fails: the only reliable sources in the article are either interviews or trivial mentions, and a WP:BEFORE search finds only more of the same. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a County Commissioner would normally not be a notable enough position under WP:NPOL I believe given the recent COVID-19 pandemic and George Floyd protests and the specific role he has played as Chairman of the board in overseeing the crisis has generated significant media coverage beyond trivial mentions and beyond his own county gaining multiple headlines.(1, 2, 3, 4) He was also deemed prominent enough to testify before the US Senate along with a slate of local officials who mostly do have Wikipedia pages (5) and before the pandemic had a biographical article (non-interview) in the local newspaper. His impact has been far greater than that of a normal County Commissioner as evidenced by his increased media coverage over the other commissioners on the board, his personal involvement in pushing back against federal funds, and direct local protests planned against him and not the commissioners as a whole developing a public persona more akin to a mayor or representative than a county commissioner. Jazatz2 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that County Commissioners are in general not notable, I believe there can be exceptions. He is the chairman of the board for one of the largest counties in the state. Per above, there is significant enough coverage for Parsons to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that some county commissioners can be notable, but I'm not seeing why Parsons is such an exception. The sources provided are little more than occasional quotes in the local news: statements like "County Commissioner Josh Parsons said he was “very pleased” with Wednesday’s announcement" are simply not significant coverage. Even the "biographical article" touted above is just an interview in which Parsons himself opines on how he "put out a plan with common sense things to do", "hasn't shied from tackling complex problems", and "ran a recent half marathon in an hour and 55 minutes". That is not independent of the subject: it's for all intents and purposes authored by the subject. Unless there's some real in-depth secondary coverage of Parsons himself (and not just the occasional "Parsons says"), he still fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There may be a significant amount of coverage for a recent event but no long lasting effect. ^Ramaswar _(discuss) 19:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason to make an exception to the general rule here. There's nothing encyclopedic to say. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I agree with DGG. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The comments since the last relist are rather weak and can't support a "delete" consensus. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ritchie333 Which part of the 3 votes is rather weak? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, see WP:VAGUEWAVE, for the other two, see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable politician. Alex-h (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, albeit weakly. Per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, OR the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), provided that it is not excluded under WP:NOT. I don't see anybody making WP:NOT arguments, and I don't see any strong ones that would allow for deletion. But, I see convincing arguments that the individual fails WP:BASIC, which is the SNG for people that's more or less a GNG equivalent. The individual has been the subject of in-depth coverage from multiple stories, though all of the non-trivial mentions I could find are from the same publication, Lancaster Online (bylined biography, 1, 2). If others were able to find in-depth coverage from any other RS independent from him, then I might consider changing my !vote. But, for now, the sources don't cut it; this local TV source is way too short and it's not super in-depth, this PennLive source plainly isn't about the commissioner, and the remainder of the Lancaster Online sources aren't WP:INDEPENDENT from each other. Merely testifying in front of congress isn't enough for notability, nor is being the subject of a political protest that apparently(?) didn't draw coverage from reliable sources (I don't consider the the protest website itself an RS for the purpose of notability). Again, it's possible that another source exists in this context, but absent my ability to find it, I lean towards deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely see your reasoning and do admit the vast majority of sources are trivial mentions. I would argue that the PennLive source revolves around comparing other counties in PA to Parson's role as commissioner and mentions him by name throughout the article. There was recently an article in the Capital-Star based in Harrisburg which discussed the protest. Although, admittedly it was not very well attended- still in attracted a response from a state-wide newspaper. You are certainly right though, most of the sources are from LNP (Lancaster Online) which can certainly be a limitation in proving notability, nonetheless other sources do exist but tend to be trivial and the articles in LNP are not themselves a part of a serial but the course of the stories is over several years during his tenure (eg. bio piece, response to covid, response to George Floyd) and not simply one single event which is the underlying reason (as it seems to me) for the WP:INDEPENDENT policy between sources. Jazatz2 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KPMS

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

borderline A7 eligible article on a Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:NORG isn’t satisfied. A before search leads me to user generated sources and primary sources all of which we do not consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment This is not an article about an American radio or television station. Nate • (chatter) 19:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf, hey there, I don’t think anybody stated that, the article and the nom rationale expressly states it is on an Indian organization. Pardon me, is there a movie series in the U.S named KPMS? In any which way this AFD is on an organization that fails to meet WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally understand the nomination, but I usually include a disclaimer on four-letter all-caps nominations starting with "K" or "W", which are the first call letters of American broadcast stations, so that those whose interest is that area know the article subject isn't about a broadcaster (we've had this confusion in a couple of noms in the past, thus why I point it out). Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf, Ah! that makes sense, thanks for taking your time to explain. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7: This article is about an unreferenced community organization that does not credibly indicate why this particular organization is notable. Since this does not appear to be an educational institution, I'd propose that we speedy delete this per A7. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 19:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable organization. Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found proof of its existence but nothing as far as in-depth coverage that would establish notability for Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any source about it. Mommmyy (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a couple of sources [5], [6] about events etc they are doing. Still not sufficient for WP:ORG. But I do wonder if local language publications would have more. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Mrschimpf and Celestina007: given your discussion above, why is this del-sorted as USA then? On the article at hand, delete I am unable to find sourcing to meet WP:ORG. No objection to draft if folks think in language sources could be found and this developed Star Mississippi 19:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clpo13_(talk) 22:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Price

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

WP:BLP1E-style issues. Every reference is of the form "the guy who paid everyone $70,000". Most of them are either interviews with him. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wage thing may have been a stunt to gain coverage, but it in fact gained coverage. BD2412 T 17:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gravity Payments. There certainly seems to be notability and coverage here, but boarding on WP:BLP1E. SkippyKR (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot object to this merge proposal; that said some of the BLP-related issues ought not be merged. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, goes past BLP1E – is it true that his ex wife's abuse allegations and lawsuit by his brother probably got more attention because of the earlier publicity stunt? Sure! But he's received media coverage from multiple reliable sources outside of that one event. — Ghost River 21:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- People who have received coverage of private legal disputes as a result of being known to the press because of one event is exactly what BLP policy is intended to remove from the encyclopedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not actually true. BLP1E clarifies that all three criteria be met, one of which is that the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Price did not fade into obscurity after cutting his own salary. WP:ONEEVENT also clarifies that Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Finally, although it is an essay, WP:NOT1E also explicitly states that Subjects who were first notable for one event, and rode that fame into attention on their other endeavours fall outside of BLP1E. Our BLP policy is actually designed to remove individuals like Ken Bone, who received his 15 minutes of fame for wearing a red sweater to a presidential debate and then fell out of the spotlight. — Ghost River 06:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG. peterl (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody has put forward a convincing policy-based argument for keeping the argument. I'm sorry that people think there is systemic political bias at play, and am happy to restore the article to userspace or a draft on request. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pemphero Mphande

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

An article previously moved to draft by Onel5969 but subsequently moved back to mainspace by the article creator. The coverage referenced in the article largely concerns campaigns with which the subject has associated. The subject does not appear notable by the WP:POLITICIAN (party youth director and unsuccessful electoral candidate) or WP:AUTHOR (author of a book with self-publishing co-producers Europe Press) criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For anyone seeking to check Google coverage of the subject, it is worth noting that at least one site triggers Trojan downloads which were (I hope) caught by my AV. AllyD (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The article is for a notable person in my country Malawi even if you can check on google my country is small in Africa everyone knows him and deserves to be here if you can check on google you will find people searching for his Wikipedia so please also look at the country before delete you even check on his good news section . phalombe (talk) 8:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minimal coverage in sources, nothing better found in WP:BEFORE search. Not elected, so doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the sources about his books are about the release/pre-order, nothing to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. --bonadea contributions talk 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article is from Malawi you have to understand Malawi is not a developed country check the other articles from Malawi the person is a public figure and deserves to be here if you can check the references non of them is paid there all for trusted sites Malawi24 and Nyasa Times. phalombe (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2021 (GMT 2)

Comment: I find it unfair that this feels like targeting public figures from poor African countries because they don't have as much digital trail. phalombe (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2021 (GMT 2)

Comment: Even if his book was published by a publisher, you would unlikely find it online because these publishers don't have an online presence. Self publishing is allowed and acceptable. His book has been cited by reliable news sources in Malawi. You can't hold a Malawian to the same standards as a European. This is why we, African countries don't develop because you tend to look down on our efforts. This person is now the most celebrated Malawian and that is in the article is well referenced by sources that this platform accepts such as Malawi24 and Nyasa Times. Unless, we also want to discredit them. He has chosen not to put the book on Amazon but it is available in Malawian book stores. phalombe (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2021 (GMT 2)

Notability has nothing to do with an online presence or a digital trail, and authors who use Amazon as a distribution platform are no more notable than those who don't. Self-published books will only be notable if there is a significant number of independent sources writing about the book. Such sources do not have to be online, but there has to be more than a brief mention of the book. --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of notability are you looking for? Wikipedia accepts for Malawi citation from Nyasa Times, from Malawi24. This book, What You See at Sunrise has been cited in these papers. Further to that, it is also cited in Malawi's biggest newspaper, the Nation. This is how far notable one goes in Malawi. So again, what kind of notability are you looking for? phalombe (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2021 (GMT 2)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Net Educational Systems. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nessy Tales

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

A WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much. Besides download links, I found a mention in a magazine, but I couldn't access it. Nothing in news. Isabelle ^🔔 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also unable to locate any substantial sources that discuss this book series. Without other indications of notability such as literary awards or a historically significant author, this appears to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep are dyslexia resources for children too few to lose one more? WurmWoode^T 00:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pro: Nessy reflects some large-ish interest or usefulness

Nessy at Youtube has 98 K subs, 25 M views since 2006

For your further consideration:

However, these articles are all related, suffer notability tagging, maybe MERGE, and why are NONE Category:Dyslexia

Net Educational Systems

Dyslexia Centre proffers Nessy and related, "an independent teaching and assessment centre"

in addition to written stories, animated videos, with scattered 2 minute Bill Bailey promotion (Dailymotion, Vimeo, YouTube)

Con: Size should not matter, but there it is

Nessy at Linked-in is a tiny company

Nessy testimonials

Reviews: Amazon.com (US), none, versus Amazon.co.uk with only a few, reflects positively

Nessy has used several website name variations, several are unresponsive or no longer extant

Even nessy.co.uk diverts to nessy.com, so external links need updating

Diverse web presence

Nessy at Zen Desk with FAQ and related assistance

Nessy's Dyslexia Explained YouTube has 1 K subs, only 43 K views

Nessy at Twitter 37 K tweets since 2010

Nessy has about 10 apps on ipad and Android:

Nessy Learning under 15 K installs, altogether

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, did find a review/listing? here but more needed, suggested merge of all the related articles might work if overall wikinotability can be found, noting the lack of dislexia related subjects on WP an article on the Bristol Dislexia Centre or even the British Dislexia Association may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Net Educational Systems, the publishing company where this line of products is already mentioned. I was unable to find much on the "Nessy Tales" line specifically, so it does not look like it can be kept. I found a few sources mentioning the parent company or some of its other products, so that article might be able to pass the WP:GNG. But, for now, this article can be redirected there as an WP:ATD pending any further discussions on the parent company. Rorshacma (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Net Educational Systems, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Cunard (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Abdullah

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

This is just a glorified CV or LinkedIn profile. There is no substantive coverage in RS about the subject. All the sourcing is in non-RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Abdullah is a authentic public figure and business personality from emirates,we don't think it goes against Wikipedia policies and it should not go for deletion in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could possibly be notable within the UAE, but the sources are all promotional puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant, in-depth coverage has been brought to bear. Neutrality^talk 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clpo13_(talk) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KidsCan

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

This charitable trust article relies almost entirely on primary sources, with little or no verification of any of its key details in independent, secondary sources. The few independent sources that do exist are based on interview materials and are therefore also primary. A cursory news search similarly returns an absence of significant coverage not similarly based on primary material. Aside from this, the article appears to be written up in promotional manner suggestive of a fan or affiliate. The private charity does not publish financial records that allow it to be evaluated and verified by platforms such as charity navigator, and I do not see a particularly strong case, at present, based on the limited coverage available, as to why this entity should be considered notable from an encyclopedic perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: KidsCan is probably one of the best known charities in New Zealand. It routinely feeds tens of thousands of kids in schools and has even been the subject of telethons in the past. I'd definitely agree the article needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted in my view. Turnagra (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is very poor and needs a lot of work, but the organisation is significant in NZ and would easily meet the notability guidelines. I'll try and find some time to play with it and tidy it up. NealeWellington (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While not a large edit, I have added references from 2 national newspaper and a radio station - there are plenty of reliable sources beyond this so Notability is met NealeWellington (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it’s a well-known charity. The article is not in good shape but AfD is about notability, not clean up. Schwede 66 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is very well known in New Zealnd.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Conte

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

Almost entirely based on blogs and self-published sources. Hardly any coverage in independent, reliable sources and no indication that the subject meets any of the notability criteria for artists, WP:NARTIST. No work in museum collections, etc. Vexations (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 22:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dethan Punalur

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

No evidence subject passes WP:ARTIST. Prior AfD (April 2021) closed with keep, but two of the three editors supporting keep have since been indeffed as socks, so appropriate to resubmit. Article had large external links section, but all were online albums of the photographer's work, ways to buy his work in poster form, or non-RS blogs, so I trimmed them out. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:ARTIST. I looked for sources and found the usual social media accounts/mentions, forum posts, storefronts, etc. Even searching specifically through Google News, I only found sources using his stock photography. There does not appear to be any significant coverage of the subject himself. Woodroar (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devang Dave

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia inclusion standard. The notability claim here is that he's a social media manager for a political party, but that isn't an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists -- it's a role where inclusion would depend on getting him over WP:GNG on the depth and quality of his sourcing. But the footnotes here aren't notability-building coverage about him: they're all just glancing namechecks of his existence within coverage of other things, which is not the kind of "coverage" it takes to get a person in the door. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like explained by nom, any non-elected non-office-holders political people need to qualify WP:GNG and this one is not. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did an edit removing unsupported claims and hyperbole. Still reeks of PROMO, most sources appear churnalism, regurgitated press statements, fails GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animals with the Tollkeeper

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The opinions here are split rather evenly, and neither side's arguments are significantly stronger than the other, in my opinion. There were some interesting alternative solutions proposed during the discussion that seemed to find some support. It might be worthwhile to continue the discussion on the article's talk page or an RfC to see if consensus can be found for any of those proposals. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of bishops in France

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMIRROR. Any reader requiring an up-to-date directory of Catholic leaders should look to the church's authoritative directory. While the upper-echelons might be notable, bishop is a relatively minor position: there are nearly 5000 bishops around the world and over 100 on this list, most of whom don't have Wikipedia pages. (Note that, while other language wikis have similar pages, with the exception of the French one, they were all created by the same editor in 2019.) pburka (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bishop is not a "relatively minor" position. Almost every diocesan bishop is the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100 might sound like a lot when you are trying to count on your fingers, but it is still way less than the number of French MPs. SpinningSpark 23:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 100 isn't a lot, but do we want similar lists for all 5000 of these officials? If this list were a historical record of French bishops it might be a different matter. It claims to be a directory of current bishops but it hasn't been updated since it was created in 2019. This isn't a defect that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE through editing: it requires permanent, ongoing maintenance. In my opinion, this indicates that the topic is non-encyclopedic. pburka (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many bishops there are outside of France is not in the least relevant to this AFD. This list will never be expanded to include them because it explicitly concerns France only. SpinningSpark 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY. The problem is deeper though as this page acts as both a WP:MIRROR of the church's authoritative directory, and a WP:WEBHOST for the French Catholic Church. This list is a poorer version of what already exits elsewhere (and intensive maintenance burden if maintenance was ever actually performed) and it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to be a free phonebook for all mid-level religious officials in any faith. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Bishop is a significant position both in the church and on a chess board. So this is a list of notable people. The fact that they are not blue link may motivate someone to start some articles. I imagine we can find coverage of each. The very first one on the list Hubert Herbreteau, is on the French Wiki. I imagine someone could transfer. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I imagine a fair few of these people actually qualify for articles here so the fact that they don't have articles is a reason to create more articles, not to delete this one. It also has a purpose in listing those that aren't notable to prevent articles from being created about non-notable people whose details can be recorded in list form. I totally understand the rationale here, but I fall on the side of preservation and usefulness. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST (has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines) with news discussions this week alone ([7] [8]). Useful for members, supporters and detractors of the Catholic church alike.‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obviously notable topic for a list particularly with current events that will probably push a number of bios to be created for some of these. The argument that we should not provide information that is available elsewhere is completely at odds with the policy that Wikipedia is based on subjects that have received multiple reliable sources coverage and should not use original research, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Redirect to List of Catholic dioceses in France per RandomCanadian's suggestion below. The biggest problem of this list is that its organized around living people. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "living..." (even though living is not in this list's title it is a living list by design); largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions. I would support keeping a list or lists of historic bishops in France, which are not based around being alive as a primary factor for inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree that lists of living <foo> should be deprecated. However, there is no reason that this list cannot be expanded to include past bishops. As you point out, the title would not even need changing. I don't buy the maintainability issue; "list of <foo>" takes just as much maintenance as "list of living <foo>" caused by death and replacement. SpinningSpark 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark I disagree. There are maintenance issues involved in lists with all people; but living people lists have more maintenance issues and can lead to more inaccuracies much more frequently (i.e. living people change; dead people don't). Such lists are usually directories and mirrors because of the maintenance needs of living lists; which is the case here. Thus living people lists usually fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMIRROR. This list could be adapted, but it should be draftified to the user space of an editor willing to work on it if that is where this AFD heads. 4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are just as many living people in a list of all bishops as there are in a list of living bishops. Same number, same work. That is just an arithmetic fact. SpinningSpark 18:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but an expanded scope at least has the benefit of having other kinds of references (such as obits of notable bishops in major newspapers, other kinds of reference works, etc.) which prevent the list from being a WP:MIRROR of the church's authoritative directory. There's something to be said for providing a different kind of list which has many more quality sources of information supporting it. Additionally, any bishop who dies still remains on the list after death; providing more list stability which aligns it with WP:NLIST. 4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something nobody appears to have thought of: (based on above) An alternative would be simply having the (chronological) list of bishops in each diocese's article (where they are not NOTDIR violations)? And then this title could redirect to List of Catholic dioceses in France? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my vote per your suggestion.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful -- This list would very easily become obsolete, though lack of maintenance. The equivalent for England would be a list of dioceses, each of which would have a list of past and present bishops, most of whom would have links to bio-articles. The maintenance issue is much less severe, as the relevant diocesan articles are likely to be updated as new appointments are made. The present list has almost no blue links, making it very little value as a navigation aid. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: You seem to have essentially the same concerns as me. Do you think redirecting to List of Catholic dioceses in France (which is essentially the equivalent of, as you mention, List of Church of England dioceses or List of Catholic dioceses in Great Britain) would be an appropriate solution? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Catholic dioceses in France. Poorly sourced and maintained, leading to BLP issues. Sandstein 19:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandstein When I read your comment, I felt inclined to agree about maintaining/BLP. But then I checked and the Bishops' conference in France actually has a list of all bishops on its website, from which our list seems to be taken. The list is, in fact, easy to maintain because the Conference also publishes a log of new bishop appointments on their website. It suffices to check said log every once in a while and control F search in our list for the most recent appointee(s). If they aren't there, then they need to replace someone. I assume that every appointment comes with a firing/resignation/death since the number of dioceses (=cities with cathedrals) should be stable. I added an invisible comment about updating, and also added the list of bishops as a ref for the tables. My Keep vote stands.‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 01:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As nominator, I'd support a redirect to List of Catholic dioceses in France. pburka (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sandstein. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per Sandstein. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for various reasons. "Bishops in France" are notable as a group, hence meet WP:NLIST. We have an article on their collective assembly (Bishops' Conference of France) and the bishops, as a group, have been covered by sources[9]. This article also gives us context surrounding the list, hence this is not an example of #7 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm also not understanding the WP:MIRROR and WP:WEBHOST arguments. We have examples in Category:Lists of current office-holders which are essentially duplicates of such lists held on more authoritative governmental websites. WP:MIRROR does not necessarily mean that wikipedia should not have a list that already exists somewhere else on the internet. As for maintainability, Trimton suggested a very good way of verifying our list. Maintenance, IMO, is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.VR _talk 04:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To make things concrete, a good example is List of current United States governors, which can also be seen at www.nga.org/governors/. List of U.S. statewide elected officials is a even bigger list that constantly changes.VR _talk 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If List of current United States governors went 2.5 years without an update I'd support deleting it, too. Lists of current things don't fall under WP:NOTIMELIMIT, in my view. If there's no group of editors constantly keeping them up to date they become liabilities. pburka (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, as a bishop is a notable position and this is a useful listJackattack1597 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I looked through all the comments and can't decide whether "keep" or "redirect" has the upper hand. More input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfys WP:NLIST, as all people on this list are notable. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Secrets (company)

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

Does not meet Notability Requirements, while searching for references I mostly found social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn or directories of the malls they are in. VViking_TalkEdits 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hard to find anything related to the company, Google mostly gives generic stuff related to trade secrets as a whole. I've heard of the company here, they aren't huge, relatively unknown. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I added a couple of references. There's been a few profiles over the years - the 2013 one in the Financial Post in particular is extensive and in-depth. Perhaps should be moved to Taylor & Colt. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below the G&M reference is paid content, so I've removed it. That does still leave one very good reference in the Financial Post - but I'm struggling to find a second. I agree though, that the main article (if it's warranted) should be at Taylor & Colt. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. The reference added by Nfitz is a puff piece based entirely on interviewing company executives (Belotti) and there's no "Independent Content". Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 12:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:HighKing. For some reason neither the Proquest Full Text (image) nor Abstract Details indicated the G&M piece was paid content - it's only when going to Page View that it becomes apparent. I've deleted that. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article don't confer notability upon it; this piece published in The Globe and Mail is a labeled advertisement. This piece doesn't appear to satisfy the RS requirements of WP:BASIC, nor does its official website. The source from Financial Post appears to give significant coverage to Taylor & Colt, but that isn't the same thing as giving significant coverage to the parent company thereof (Trade Secrets) and it doesn't appear to do so independently. We're left with one source that's iffy regarding its applicability, which wouldn't be enough to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Additional searching on the internet does not appear to find WP:CORPDEPTH-compliant coverage, so I can't support anything other than deletion; we need multiple RS, and there isn't strong evidence for this to reasonably be the case. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per Mikehawk10 and HighKing. Sources available in the article and in searches do not present evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If anything might be notable here, it would be the parent company. In normal circumstances we should redirect to to the parent but that appears to not be currently possible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clpo13_(talk) 05:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian-African-Latin American Table Tennis Invitational Tournament

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

I don’t think this competition passes WP:NSPORT. Sourced currently to a blog. There may be in-depth coverage in Chinese or other sources but I’m not seeing it. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Here's a 1973 English in-depth report in the Peking Review. I am not sure how reliable it is as a source, but this was no minor event, being attended by what looks like most of the Chinese leadership. It seems likely there are more sources in Chinese, probably not many online though given when it happened.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's it's name in Chinese for finding more sources: 亚非拉乒乓球友好邀请赛.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is a detailed report on it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" arguments are weak, mentioning few sources. More input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found an additional source. Given how long ago the event occurred, and that it is in a non-English speaking country, I think it is likely there would have been coverage at the time that is now inaccesible as it is not online. NemesisAT (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article, taken together with the sources presented in this deletion discussion, show that the article subject likely passes WP:GNG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Holden

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

No indication of notability which cannot be inherited from notable parents, siblings or step parents and step brothers. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as written. BD2412 T 16:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google search turns up nothing we can use, with the news hits being name-drops in obituaries (string: ["christopher holden" actor]). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draftspace for despamming. There's (weak) consensus that she's notable, but also that the content is an awful mess of self-promotion. Accordingly, the article is moved to draft space. It should be moved back to main space only after the promotionalism and refbombing has been thoroughly cleaned up. Sandstein 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Agranovich

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

CSD was declined, but I agree with the nominator that the article is unambiguously promotional. Re-nominating for CSD is not an option, so I'm bringing it here. Vexations (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability meets WP:MUSIC (#1: multiple independent publications, #5: several albums on Centaur Records; maybe #8: Awards). Perhaps what may appear to some as promotional is generally being used to demonstrate the subject's contribution to the art - easy to cleanup, if needed. Wjwalrus (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Wjwalrus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vexations (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Please note that Wjwalrus (talk) has been a Wikipedian since 2007 and is an extended confirmed user. Wjwalrus (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The article, even as is, clearly demonstrates that she passes WP:MUSIC criteria #1 (substantial coverage in multiple notable independent publications), #5 (Centaur Records), and possibly #8 depending on your definition of "major award." Promotional tone can be rewritten (as I have now done); AfD is not cleanup. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously obvious keep: I can see no metric by which this passes any requirement for deletion, and "I don't like the writing" is certainly not among them. That this was initially a speedy is extremely worrying. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like the writing" is not how I would characterize WP:PROMOTION, but perhaps you'd care to explain why you think we should cite sources like https://marquispressreleases.com/press-release/sophia-agranovich-named-a-lifetime-achiever-by-marquis-whos-who ? Vexations (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll ask you something else. Can you tell me which of these (they're all the sources currently used in the article) are the three best sources to support the case for notability?

Discussion of sources

- Comment: Fanfare and the American Record Guide alone satisfy WP:MUSIC #1. If your problem is with the presentation of sources, the answer is to wikify it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not impressed by the amount of biographical detail that is available in
  and
  - https://www.americanrecordguide.com/
  How are we supposed to write an article with what is in those sources? Vexations (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This debate has gone in all the wrong directions. Promotional language is not necessarily a reason to delete the article but it is definitely a reason for cleanup, or severe cleanup in this case. The pianist has been mentioned in reliable classical music publications many times, but on the other hand they have very little biographical information about her. Classical musicians are rarely covered in widespread music media publications, but they can achieve notability from being acknowledged by the community in different ways. I will ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music if anyone there can help out, which might get us some useful votes based on policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge the implied assertion that Fanfare is a independent, reliable source. Buying advertising space in the publication guarantees a review. That's not independent. Vexations (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are weak for proving notability. The article is such a mess with embedded hyperlinks that it almost impossible to clean up as is. It needs a total rewrite to remain. Sentences like "She earned a certification in Computer Science from the Empire Technical School in New York City in 1981." and "From 2009 to 2012 she taught Yoga and Pilates at the Summit Area YMCA in New Jersey." sourced to Marquis Who's Who Top Educators need to go. Makes more sense to delete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tricky one. On the surface, subject's coverage appears to more than qualify her for notability. Dig deeper and one finds many of the sources flawed: publications which operate on a quid pro quo basis, personal websites engaged in cross-promotion, labels which operate more as distributors than traditional record labels. Citing badly written articles about notable musicians doesn't help; after all, as badly written and hagiographic as they are, that still doesn't change the fact that they are notable. I agree with Vexations here. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a decent bio. I think her article should be about that size: a few simple facts and recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she passes WP:MUSIC -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is highly promotional.--Smerus (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability met per Wjwalrus (talk) and Gnomingstuff (talk). Text cleanup performed by Gnomingstuff (talk), Leonmarcus (talk) and others. Leonmarcus (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Leonmarcus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vexations (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonmarcus since you left the edit summary "Vote to keep with reasons stated". Please note that AfD is not a vote. See [WP:DISCUSSAFD]]. When Wikipedians say !vote they mean NOT vote. The ! indicates a negation in many programming languages. Please provide a policy-based argument for why the subject is notable (that means: which independent, reliable sources exist). So far, nobody here has managed to mention even one that comes remotely close to meeting our requirements. What those are is explained in detail at WP:GNG. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Leonmarcus (talk) believes that regular editors should assume good faith regarding newcomers. Leonmarcus (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And reminding experienced users not to bite the newbies is unnecessary. We know. Are you implying that I don't? I'm asking you to participate in this discussion in a way that is in line with our guidelines, and helpfully ( I think) cleared up a misunderstanding. Now, please present an actual source that establishes notability. If you don't, I'm going to assume there isn't one. Vexations (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles states: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... 5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

—Centaur Records was founded 1976. The roster of notable artists on Centaur Records includes vocalist Nanette McGuinness, composers Jack Cooper, Wendy Mae Chambers and Marco Katz, cellists Amit Peled, Jeffrey Solow and Antony Cooke, santur player and composer Pouya Saraei, oboist Alessandro Baccini, pianists Antonio Pompa-Baldi, Geoffrey Burleson, Frederic Chiu and Rebecca Penneys, pianist and composer Richard Aaker Trythall, organist, composer, and conductor Haig Mardirosian, conductor Gisele Ben-Dor, ensembles Arianna String Quartet and Armonia Celeste, violinist Kinga Augustyn and Dinos Constantinides and lutenist Massimo Marchese.

Having released 6 albums on Centaur Records, the subject of the article, Sophia Agranovich, meets WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians #5. Leonmarcus (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, I agree that that can be used to establish that she is notable. Now, because that information doesn't give us anything that we could summarize, in order to write something about her besides a discography, we just need two or three sources that are independent of the subject that provide a biography or critical commentary on her work. Does that exist? Vexations (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia BLP policy regarding the use of the subject as a self-published source states: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Biographical and other material are available on the subject's personal website which can be used per the aforementioned policy.

The Wikipedia explanatory supplement regarding examples of non-self-published sources includes the following: "The contents of magazines and newspapers, including editorials and op-ed pieces in newspapers (including online-only content of widely-circulated magazines and newspapers)." Additionally the Wikipedia content guideline regarding published material states that: "...audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited."

Sources of non-self-published material are available for this article that meet Wikipedia requirements, such as from:

"American Record Guide"- 7 reviews

WQXR-FM and WQXR.org - "Chopin Marathon" live performance at the Greene Space

WQXR "Reflections from the Keyboard" radio show with David Dubal - featured 4 times

WWFM and WWFM.org - "Piano Matters with David Dubal" - radio show, featured 18 times

"Audiophile Audition" - review

"Radio Fantastica" – interview

"MainlyPiano" – interview and reviews

"Chatting with Nat" podcast with Natalie Jean on SIM radio network

"Performing Arts Review" - video Interview with Maestro Daniel Kepl

"Art Music Lounge" – 3 reviews

"Atlanta Audio Club" - 3 reviews

"Clouzine Magazine" - reviews and articles

"Lite Lounge with Dimitri K." - featured in 4 radio podcasts syndicated worldwide in rotaion on many stations

"Music Matters" video interview and performance with Maestro Jason Tramm

Steinway Artists Roster - biography

"Fanfare Magazine" - 90 reviews and interviews

Leonmarcus (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful. A reference should identify a single document. You can't just say "Fanfare Magazine", especially when we have already established that Fanfare will publish reviews in exchange for buying advertising space. Vexations (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the individual references are already in the article - no need to restate. But the summary listing above shows the wide and significant coverage of this artist. Leonmarcus (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. The citations to fanfare are 5x to https://www.fanfarearchive.com, 2x to http://fanfarearchive.com and http://fanfarearchive.com/indices/itop/performers/agranovichsophia.html And for the nth time; Fanfare is NOT an independent, reliable source and should not be used at all. Now, again, please show me three actual, real sources. If they exist I'll withdraw the nomination. If you persist in obfuscation and refbombing, I'll seek a remedy for disruptive editing. Vexations (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The case against the article would be stronger if Fanfare were the only source, but there are more than enough sources mentioned for the article to survive. Additionally one could argue that Fanfare citations are the independent opinions of individual expert reviewers and not the position of the magazine, which is perhaps why uncounted Wiki editors have elected not to remove Fanfare citations from the more than one hundred articles where they currently appear. Seeking remedies at this point seems unfortunate since the discussion has been civil and substantive.

Below are some detailed citations of non-self-published material that offer support for the article.

"American Record Guide"- review March–April 2021 P. 45-46 (6 additional reviews in the issues November–December 2012, July–August 2014, July–August 2015, March–April 2016, March–April 2017, July–August 2021)

"Chopin Marathon" live performance at the Greene Space, New York WQXR.org

WQXR "Reflections from the Keyboard" radio show with David Dubal - rotated on 7/29/2021, 8/1/2021, 1/21/2016, 1/24/2016

WWFM and WWFM.org "Piano Matters’ with David Dubal" - radio show (have to select date on the calendar) 5/23/2021 . Featured 17 more times 4/6/2016, 4/9/2016, 4/4/2017, 4/8/2017, 4/14/2018, 4/16/2018, 11/28/2018, 12/2/2018, 4/17/2019, 4/21/2018, 1/29/2020, 2/2/2020, 2/10/2021, 2/14/2021, 3/3/2021, 3/7/2021, 5/19/2021

"Audiophile Audition" - review

"MainlyPiano" – interview and 3 reviews – November 2018, October 2020, February 2021

"Chatting with Nat" podcast with Natalie Jean on SIM radio network

"Performing Arts Review" - Video Interview with Maestro Daniel Kepl

"Art Music Lounge" – 3 reviews: March 2016, October 2016, January 2021

"Music Matters" video interview and performance with Maestro Jason Tramm

Steinway Artists Roster - biography

"Radio Fantastica" – Interview and performance

Leonmarcus (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you didn't answer my question. I asked for three sources and you refbomb me with Youtube? Please see WP:YOUTUBE. Interviews are not independnet. Do I really have to go through all these again and debunk this nonsense? This IS becoming disruptive. Note to closer: There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, and found this by WQXR which is a notable station on classical music, David Dubal being a notable host and expert in piano music, and she in good company on the program. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is a source that only says

Transcendental Etude No. 10 in F minor

Franz Liszt

Sophia Agranovich

(no label/ self released)

significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Vexations (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say it was? I can tell you that if she got broadcast in that Liszt program she is notable. As said above, I agree with drastic shortening, as outlined below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up significantly - I have been watching this so-called "debate" while suppressing my gag reflex. Ms. Agranovich's article is a hideous mess of fan prose and ref-bombing, and can be reduced by a good 95%. However, I have been convinced by the level-headed contributors above who have delivered evidence of her meeting #5 at WP:NMUSICBIO, and cases could be made for #7 and #10 as well. If the article survives this process, I volunteer to help clean it up myself. But I will not react to the near-future bludgeoning that is surely coming my way from the person who has spent more time repeating the same argument here than it would have taken to clean up the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*I promise not to bludgeon you DOOMSDAYER520 if you turn this into the drastically shorter article it should be. I tried unsuccessfully to clean it up, but it needs a total rewrite. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus is that there are indicators of notability, even though in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources does not exist and that the article needs to be drastically trimmed down to summarize only what reliable sources say, then I will join that consensus. Does that work for everybody? Vexations (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

agree That works for me Vexations. You perfectly articulated a solution. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

agree --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Troyes#Saints connected with the diocese. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exuperantia

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

No claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming that the content on the article is correct, it seems like this could at least be covered at Roman Catholic Diocese of Troyes#Saints connected with the diocese rather than outright deleted, no? TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject is not even mentioned in the article, Roman Catholic Diocese of Troyes. I suppose it could be merged there, since the current content is itself barely a mention. BD2412 T 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one sentence to the list found by TompaDompa. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Troyes#Saints connected with the diocese. The only good reference mentions that no other information is available on this saint and thus the stub is unlikely to ever be expanded beyond the simple sentence it already has. Ifnord (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Armenians of Romania. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Romanian dialects

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

It seems there are not sources that support the existence of a distinct and notable enough Armenian dialect in Romania. Languages have a lot of small variations, from one village to another the language is different. But that doesn't mean all dialects spoken by the Armenian diaspora in other countries need an article. I propose merging into Armenians of Romania. A similar article, Armenian Moldavian dialect, was merged into said page a few days ago, but since the article was restored, I am opening a formal AfD so the page is not rewritten again. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge into a new language section of Armenians of Romania, as suggested. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Armenians of Romania as a section. I don’t think it’s distinct dialect - Armenians, broadly speaking, speak two dialects - Western

Armenian dialect (most of the Diaspora) and Eastern Armenian Dialect (in Armenia, Artsakh, Iran and former USSR countries). There is no French Armenian or Italian Armenian Dialect for example. --Armatura (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete, as there is no sourced content to merge. (t · c) buidhe 07:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armenians of Romania — if and when reliable sources emerge regarding a Romanian variety of Armenian, that topic can be covered at the target. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no sourced content to merge into Armenians of Romania, and the title is simply wrong: "Armenian Romanian dialects" are Romanian dialects spoken in Armenia, thus the complete opposite of what this article intends to describe. There is no reason to keep misleading and factually spurious redirects. –Austronesier (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Relisted twice already with no additional participation and ineligible for soft-deletion due to a previous proposed deletion. No prejudice against speedy renomination. clpo13_(talk) 22:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz bin Turki Al Saud (born 1986)

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

There is no substantive coverage by reliable sources of the subject. Just being a member of an enormous royal family does not seem sufficient for notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate this person receives significant media attention independent of the House of Saud. JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 11:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishka Pandey

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

Subject not notable and fails to meet WP:NSPORT Advait (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely NSPORT is the wrong guideline, the relevant guideline would be WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OP is now CU blocked. Meters (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Les K. Wright

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

Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability criterion. I did searches on Google Scholar, Google books etc. and did not find any substantial independent sources covering him. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That a university (in this case, Cornell University) holds his collected papers is generally a sign of notability, although I don't think it is a pass of any of our criteria on its own. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The most applicable SNG is WP:NAUTHOR, which he doesn’t meet, not on evidence I can find. Undelete readily if someone can identify a merge target, but I couldn’t find one. It may be a missing article, something like History of Bear (gay culture). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalani Hilliker

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

A majority of this page is completely unsourced and half of the actual sources are the subject's own youtube page. I do not think this page meets wikipedia's notability standards and should be removed. Apathyash (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by a quick Google search, you will see her notability is shown by significant coverage in RS, [10]Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BASIC notability. Per WP:BI, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Insider, and the 2020 coverage noted above does not appear to have much depth beyond what she posted to social media and the reaction of others to it; the event is also covered by WP:NEWSWEEK (described at WP:RSP as now "mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism"). I also found a one-paragraph blurb in a 2019 'where are they now' EOnline article, 2 sentences at the end of 'where are they now?' coverage from FOX News, and 2015 coverage of her role in Dance Moms, primarily based on her statements, in OK! Magazine. While the Woman's Day profile in the article is focused on her, it is written by an "editorial assistant" and carries the disclaimer: "Woman's Day participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites", so I question the independence of an article that appears to have affiliate links embedded in the names of products promoted in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The above comment mischaracterizes how publishing works on several counts. An editorial assistant is generally a full-time staff member on the editorial (i.e., not advertising) side of a publishing company, and there is no reason to regard them any differently than other staff without other evidence. The "affiliate marketing program" note refers to the practice of major news organizations (including The New York Times, New York Magazine, the Washington Post, etc.) inserting referral links to Amazon for items mentioned in news articles. While there are certainly ethical issues with this practice from a publishing standpoint, it is not the same as sponsored content, and at any rate any conflict of interest would involve Amazon and not the subject of an artist. I found an additional, substantial profile as well, which I am now adding. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This additional source appears to be WP:PROMOTION, because the publisher describes itself as "We help brands publish their catalogs online to deliver beautiful shoppable experiences" and "Online catalogs are easily distributed throughout your marketing channels. With Publitas Enterprise, these catalogs become interactive & shoppable. This enables you to easily share your brand’s shopping experience on online channels other than your online store." This therefore does not appear to be a reliable source that can support notability, and per policy, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)″[reply]

Comment: The publisher is more of a Scribd-type hosting platform, and it also hosts traditional magazines such as Frame. The magazine's website is here, and the content seems more or less as reliable as similar entertainment publications. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate the additional information, but based on Unclear Magazine's self-description on the Contact page, "Unclear Magazine is a digital publication that highlights YOUR favorite creatives. Our goal is to provide you with unique conversations and beautiful images with the creatives you love. Mixed with a bit of opinion and creative writing, we know you’ll find what you are looking for at Unclear Magazine", this does not seem to indicate the editorial oversight and fact-checking needed for it to be considered a reliable WP:SOURCE. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC and doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. I don't see any need for an article here. scope_creep^Talk 15:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to FKi 1st. clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FKi (production team)

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

Non-notable production team that is not independently notable from its most prominent member, FKi 1st. Far from meeting WP:NORG as well. Mottezen (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into FKi 1st - Since FKi 1st has notability and his production team can be part of his own work, I suggest merging it with FKi 1st transferring most of the information into a separate "Production team" there. We certainly don't want part of the original materials here to get lost without track with deletion. I will see what I can do with salvaging at least part if what we have here on FKi 1st page. Also I suggest making this a redirect rather than cancelling it all. werldwayd (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RiverSync

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. The only in-depth sources I could identify were reviews of the service on TechTalkThai.com[11] and Beartai.com[12], but they don't seem particularly independent. (The former notes that it was invited by the company, while the latter includes a sales promotion at the end.) Article created by an SPA; 2016 PROD contested by Atlantic306. Recently repeatedly tagged for CSD by an IP editor, who has been blocked for disruptive editing (the criteria were invalid). Paul_012 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to be found other than the two articles mentioned in nomination, which do not appear enough to meet WP:NCORP. – SD0001 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 13:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Oates

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

No evidence of notability. He has played two games in the Danish 3rd division[13], has a world ranking from ca. #1500, and hasn't received the necessary attention from independent WP:RS to have an article here (yet). Fram (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidelines are at WP:NBADMINTON. He comes close to meeting the threshold by representing Wales at the 2020 European Men's and Women's Team Badminton Championships. Unfortunately Wales didn't proceed beyond the group stage of that competition. He may compete in the 2022 Commonwealth Games.[14] He doesn't quite meet WP:NBADMINTON, but in my view some of the notability thresholds are unduly restrictive. We could redirect to Wales national badminton team, but there is little content in that article. I would not have nominated this. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is close to meeting guidelines with a view to future potential at 2022 Commonwealth games. He represents Wales who do regularly send athletes to Commonwealth games and Olympic games. Notability is he has played 2 Team matches in Danish Badminton 3rd division. Interesting submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.232.128 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, leaning to keep Upcoming international player. Good background coverage at anchor.fm and YCsports.com SportsOlympic (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two are only one source, a podcast and their youtube channel. A podcast with 149 subscribers, and without much notability otherwise[15]. Fram (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. "Future potential in next year's games" is not an argument for notability here and now. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This individual fails the relevant WP:NSPORT guideline and appears to fail WP:NBASIC based upon my analysis of sources. The article sources do not confer notability on the individual, nor do sources that I can find on the internet. The sole keep !vote appears to rely on a WP:CRYSTAL argument, indicating that the individual might become notable in the future as he's "up-and-coming". This doesn't convince me to !vote for keep. Obviously, this individual could be notable if additional sources were to be published in the future that help to satisfy WP:BASIC, but this is almost tautological—it isn't a reason to keep an article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wigor Gomes

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Note that the article was previously full of exaggerated claims. He supposedly played once in the Brazilian Serie A, but this is not to be found at Zerozero (which explicitly states 0 Portuguesa games), Foradejogo or Soccerway. He then stayed in the non-pro Canadian Soccer League and after that on the third tiers and below in Portugal. In other words an amateur player. Geschichte (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Very few references found, does not meet significant coverage criteria for standalone article. To note, I found (few) results under both "Wigor Gomes" as well as "Wigor da Silva Gomes" if someone else is searching. GauchoDude (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not notable Alex-h (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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.

Note: the previous PROD mentioned by Cewbot was added and then reverted by the nominator of this discussion, per Special:Diff/1053772848. clpo13_(talk) 23:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Kids (TV series)

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

Non-notable TV series Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telecogresca

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Have already added content from this article to the Telecom BCN article. No reliable sources to indicate notability Rogermx (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : Plenty of reliable sources exist if you do a google news search. I have added 4 citations, including this [16]. All articles refer to it as the largest university festival in Spain. The nominator need to do better job. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, you have one reliable source. If Telecogresca is the largest university party in Spain, why no other articles from mainline Spanish news papers or magazines in Barcelona or elsewhere in Spain?

Secondly, no proof of notability. Hard to believe that Telecogresca, with a capacity of 12,000 people, is the largest university party in Spain. Your sources provide no proof of this claim anyway. This year, over 25,000 students attended a street party in Madrid. I would say that it was the biggest party. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/complutense-university-spanish-police-wrong-footed-as-25-000-party-at-madrid-university-2545807

Finally, Telecogresca is not held on university property anymore, so it is questionable to call it a university party. It is instead a student activity.

My suggestion is to put a redirect to the article about the university. Rogermx (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Supergirl#Matrix. ✗plicit 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supergirl (Matrix)

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

Why this Supergirl variant/plotline deserves a dedicated entry? The article is just a pure plot summary, with no reception/significance, and references are all primary (comic books), except a single forum post... In other words, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I am not even sure what would be a good redirect target, and whether there is anything here that could be salvaged by merging; Supergirl#Matrix is entirely unreferenced and adding primary "references" from here there would be just a wiki window dressing... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supergirl#Matrix where she is already covered. The current article is nothing but plot summary (even the "Behind the Scenes" section doesn't actually provide any actual analysis, and is mostly WP:OR), and searches did not bring up much beyond plot summaries outside of brief mentions in discussions of Supergirl's overall history. To further confuse things, many sources (and this article itself) conflates the "Matrix" version with the Linda Danvers version, who has a separate article already. So, in short, this article is really specifically about the version of Supergirl that is simply the Matrix version before merging with Linda Danvers, which there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources that a WP:SPLIT from the main article seems justified. Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I was set to argue keep, but Rorshacma saved me from that embarrassment by noting that we have a separate article for Linda Danvers. Count me among the people confused by the character's history... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarthak Sharma

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources have in-depth coverage of the subject (to paraphrase, mainly "Sarthak Sharma who developed AutoForSure" app says, "...""), and even if they did, I would strongly oppose using any of them, as they read so much like advertisements, there is no reason to believe they are independent. Navbharat Times says, at the time of the report, 300 drivers had already signed up. Makes it sound more like a human interest story about a young kid's school project, than an entrepreneurial achievement of an adult; and it's mainly propaganda for Modi's agenda. Multiple references are the same story in different websites, and all references can be categorised into two bursts: January 2021 and mid-2021. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources smell paid media to me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial Party of India

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

Completely unsourced (no sources seem to exist); thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Creator has continued to re-create this article in mainspace despite multiple draftifications, so this is the next step; this way also gets us WP:G4, which it seems we'll need. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: This seems to be a very minor party; they run very few candidates and only garner a few hundred votes. Curbon7 (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some very brief passing mentions in the Indian press but no WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify : As a political party registered under the Election Commission of India, it is advisable to move the article to the draft space without deleting Padavalam🌂 ► 11:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is the standard it needs to meet, not whether a party has managed to get itself registered with an authority. No point draftifying if the article is literally never going to pass WP:GNG based on the present level of coverage. FOARP (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Padavalamkuttanpilla, I've tried that! There are currently like 3 or 4 version of this article sitting in draftspace. Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious POV pushing and COI. I've removed some of the most blatant spam and attacks. — Voice of Clam 16:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative and Commodity Exchange Nepal Ltd.

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

WP:BEFORE check shows that there are no independent sources that provide a WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. There are few press releases online which are not sufficient to show WP:NORG or any noticeable contribution in Nepal where the company is registered. The official website is dead. nirmal (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Fade258 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, and if its own website is dead that really indicates a lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Seychelles Twenty20 International cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deso Kalvin

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of actual notability. The Seychelles are a minor cricket country, and playing for the national team doesn't seem to generate the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG. Listed as part of the team[17] but no significant coverage, and other sources are only databases or lists, nothing really substantial about him[18]. Fram (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Seychelles Twenty20 International cricketers Subject fails WP:NCRIC as T20I appearances were in a regional qualifier and not a global qualifier. In terms of GNG there are only passing mentions, and so not enough for a GNG pass. List though is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, procedural speedy keep, wrong way to propose a merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal prime

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing about this article that cannot be adequately explained by illegal number. I propose merging the articles together. See further rationale in Talk:Illegal prime. Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close according to WP:SKCRIT #1. Just go ahead and merge or propose a merge at WP:PROPMERGE. Thincat (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the sources found in the first nomination and as Thincat points out, AfD is not for proposed merges. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 universities and colleges in Nepal#Management colleges. ✗plicit 08:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global College of Management

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

It is a private, for profit institute in Nepal. Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. nirmal (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference in the article is primary and the only thing I could find in a search was a couple of trivial listing in school references. As well as a brief piece about some students that attended a seminar or something. None of that is enough to pass WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is sufficient material to verify that it exists but not much more. I'm not even sure that all of what the searches turn up refers to the same college as it is quite a generic name. Depending of the nature of its affiliation with Tribhuvan University then maybe a redirect could be appropriate? It isn't linked from that article though, so maybe not. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all colleges are affiliated to Tribhuvan University. Creating List of colleges affiliated with Tribhuvan University would be better than redirecting to the University. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of universities and colleges in Nepal#Management colleges. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as per Usedtobecool .Fade258 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former GMA Artist Center artists

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

Fails WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has reliable sources, it just needs to improve by adding more sources, no need to delete. Ctrlwiki (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see my input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current GMA Artist Center artists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--ERAMnc 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ctrlwiki. Drags4U (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drags4U: but read WP:NIS. The sources are non-independent, press releases. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's not necessary to create a list of talents for every talent agency or network. Viva Artists Agency doesn't have one. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for talent agencies. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NIS, WP:NOTWEBHOST (these three rules outlined above), and WP:NOTADVERT. Chompy Ace 23:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current GMA Artist Center artists

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

Fails WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has reliable sources, it just needs to improve by adding more sources, no need to delete. Ctrlwiki (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ctrlwiki the sources are not really reliable as you think. They are non-independent sources = WP:NIS. Press releases. Not reliable even if the sources come from a trusted news agency here. Additionally, is BoredProductive website reliable? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Ctrlwiki. Also, an article not having enough reliable sources is not a reason to delete it. It's a reason to improve it. Koikefan (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Koikefan: unless the article also leans to violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which may be a case here also. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's not necessary to create a list of talents for every talent agency or network. Viva Artists Agency doesn't have one. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ctrlwiki. Drags4U (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we did this type of article for Endeavor or CAA for American performers, this would be laughed out of the room. Wikipedia is not a talent agency database. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for talent agencies. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERT. Lists of "current things" are inherently unstable and generally non-encyclopedic. Anyone needing this info can get it from the company's website, which we're currently mirroring. pburka (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NIS, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTADVERT (outlined above). Chompy Ace 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect restored after block evasion. Graham87 02:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Peter, Caviar Eater

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this episode to satisfy WP:GNG. Listing here for further discussion as redirecting has not been successful, and redirect attempts have been repeatedly reverted. I suggest that we restore the redirect to Family Guy (season 2)#ep8, which offers sufficient coverage. ASUKITE 01:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 01:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 01:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John F. Yancey. ✗plicit 12:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yanceys, Wyoming

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

All evidence is that this place was nothing but Yancey's hotel. Possibly it could be merged into the Yellowstone article, but I don't see it passing WP:GEOLAND on its own. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John F. Yancey, no need for a separate article. This could eventually fit in an article about the history of tourism in Yellowstone. –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John F. Yancey, per above. Seems to simply have bin his homestead/hotel. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightyear (film)

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

Lightyear (film)

Unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability. The article and its references do not provide independent significant coverage of the film. The guideline on future films states that films do not satisfy notability if they have not completed production. Neither this article nor the references state that animation (which is the equivalent of principal photography) has been completed. Because the film has not been produced, this is too soon, even if films that are in or out of production are notable (which is a matter of contention). An analysis of the references is not necessary, but none of the references provide independent secondary coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Deadline.com	A story about the teaser	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Variety.com	Another story about the teaser	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	Variety.com	A pre-announcement	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	Fandango.com	An interview	No			No
5	YouTube		No		No	No
6	Comicbook.com	A 2019 article saying that there might be another film	Yes	No	Yes	No
7	Variety.com	Interview about an earlier film	Yes	No	Yes	No
8	Cinemablend.com	Article about the possibility of this film	Yes	No		No

This is a Pixar film, and Pixar has enthusiastic fans, but Wikipedia requires notability in addition to enthusiasm, and this article does not satisfy the notability guidelines. As an alternative to deletion, this article should be:

Moved back to draft space until the film is released.
Redirected to Toy Story (franchise). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Draft~~ in the spirit of our two policies WP:PRESERVE and WP:CRYSTAL we should send to draft. A draft could satisfy both policies. The user could improve and add reliable sources as they bccome available; and If the film newer happens the article never gets to main space. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFP. KidAd • SPEAK 02:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No where does WP:NFILM state that animated films must be completed; it states, "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process," which is the case with this film. This reasoning for deleting the article should be disregarded. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KidAid. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Franchise grossed 3b so we know they will release it. I just read this in our guide saying it passes if the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. so I will change my ivote. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: -- if you're changing your vote, you can withdraw this nomination and close it. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone35: - @Robert McClenon: is the nominator. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Didn't the guidelines for notability used to be that the film was in production and widely discussed by multiple sources? With this new trailer, this film obviously satisfies both conditions. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Clearly satisfies film notability guidelines, especially given the release of the trailer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously satisfies the guidelines and should not be deleted. Fanowaty (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep discussed by multiple reliable sources, meets guidelines for WP:NFF. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea where you keep coming up with the claim that a film is not notable until it's released. You must be misinterpreting something in WP:NFF. I'll check the page later to fix any issues. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Iamnoahflores - No, I have probably read the film guidelines as many times as anyone. The film guidelines are poorly written and have been controversial since 2008. They state that a film that has not been released is only notable if production itself has been notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re the nomination, WP:NFF says "commenced" not "completed", with regards to production; however, that seems to conflict with the other guidance in the same section about production needing to be notable, as you pointed out here. clpo13_(talk) 17:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll check WP:NFF later to edit any conflicting or confusing statements. Iamnoahflores (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a movie with potential notoriety. According to WP:NFP, even if the article does not meet all the requirements of the notoriety criteria, it is possible to maintain it. WP:CRYSTAL can only be invoked when the film is mere speculation and has no valid reference about its production. See WP:NFF. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all arguments above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per discussion above, I would also agree with A.WagnerC that this movie will eventually gain prominence. Anonymous1941 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the very narrow argument that NFF suggests unreleased films where the production itself has not been notable, should not have articles. But the inherent absurdity of this AfD suggests that it's the policy that should be changed, rather than blindly following policy and deleting an article for a major film that has been the subject of 50 news articles in the last day. 74.203.51.90 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the teaser trailer being released just two days ago, there's no way this doesn't meet notability standards. No time to let it stand like the present. Songwaters (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a ridiculous AFD. There's a trailer for the film already and multiple articles about it. It is notable. 122.106.215.3 (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 03:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lesotho–Spain relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. Actual relations are very little: no embassies, state visits, migration, significant trade. The article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The relations are not subject to significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only see WP:SYNTH WP:TRIVIA and no substantial relations. The article was clearly created by a completionist, violating WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lesotho is very insignificant as a country, and very few people know it even exists. Even though Wikipedia is not paper, a article about something that is nearly nonexistent has no place here. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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