Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 11

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< August 10 August 12 >

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 no consensus. Whether it passes WP:NFILM isn't a sure thing, but after nearly a month of discussion there seems to be a lack of compelling arguments for deletion. DatGuyTalkContribs 07:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agra (2007 film)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Agra (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not a G4 and the re-creation was allowed per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_March_11 but it's unclear that the sourcing meets significant element of NFILM/GNG. Sify lacks a byline and Chennai Online is not enough on its own. A search does not identify any further coverage that could be added. Star Mississippi 17:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete not much else besides IMDB, at the same time it is on IMDB. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes NFILM - sources added and article improved. Three full reviews are there (including the reliable Sify), with extra coverage on its release from other platforms, and on production details. Neutral Fan (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Users who spend time and create deleted articles should be encouraged. Chennai Online is reliable because the writer is from The Indian Express. Dinamalar is also a reliable source and the source mentions the film. All in all, beautiful article. DareshMohan (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am currently neutral, but oppose keep right now, as the rationales provided aren't convincing at all. It's very difficult to assert whether this meets GNG, first of all, refs 4 isn't enough. Another reply said that Dinamalar is also a reliable source and the source mentions the film, but "mentions the film" isn't enough, SIGCOV, at least one long paragraph (it isn't official, but in AfC, it says so), this isn't met for this, as ref 4, 5, 6 are non-significant, mentions aren't sufficient. The other refs are unreliable, except for the three full reviews that discussion is needed. Sify is a technology site, I am not sure if it's an RS for films, it also isn't indexed in Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic. Chennai Online is perhaps not a clear and cut RS (I'd say it's marginally reliable?), but its reviewer appeared in Indian Express, but the critic isn't an RT approved critic? The other one is a popular website with a very well-known YouTube channel, but has a very questionable, poor about us, with no WP page, checking its articles on COVID-19, it's all right, but very superficial and short. So this is probably marginally reliable, whether it counts towards GNG is uncertain. Ref 10 is an SPS, very poorly written, about has no policies, with grammar errors in its about us, then say it's powered by WordPress (non-reliable), so it's not an RS at all. So, there are only three refs that may count towards GNG, even these are debatable. Further, the keep comment on it passing Wikipedia:NFILM, from my POV, inaccurate. It says [t]he film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics as the criteria I am assuming that DareshMohan says it meets. This isn't true, as none of the critics are nationally known, they lack a WP page, Rotten Tomatoes page, or MC page, plus all websites aren't established enough. So I refute this. Though, the guideline states [f]or the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. But does this meet GNG? There's lots of sources, but IMO the quality of these are debatable, so I won't give a vote for now. I also strongly disagree with these lines: Dinamalar is also a reliable source and the source mentions the film. All in all, beautiful article. I don't see how this is a beautiful article, this isn't relevant to Notability, and it cites too many poor refs or need expansion/clarification, so I disagree with this (see my previous comment for disagreeing with the Dinamalar ref. Of course, this comment is far too long and not well worded, apologies, and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sify is a reliable source per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Malini Mannath has been writing for The Indian Express for decades and later The New Indian Express. I agree with you that other than the three reviews, the other sources do not give much/are not notable but you must remember that it is hard to search sources and nobody has searched The Hindu archives (the search bar only goes back to 2011). DareshMohan (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that the NFILM criteria of reviews by two or more nationally known critics is met here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Expanded well enough with multiple reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep per VickKiang. Does not meet NFILM since we have the name of only one reviewer. However it may be considered if "critic" and "review website" are seen as the same. Does not have significant coverage in sources. I have twice removed content related to production of another movie from the article, and today removed coverage about the producer/director's arrest related to production of another movie. Unlike mentioned above, I could not find mention of the film in Dinamalar. I am fine with moving to draft, if it's going to take time to get sources, such as by going through the archives of The Hindu as DareshMohan mentioned above. Jay 07:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Readded the Dinamalar reference. The reference says ""ஆக்ரா' படம் தயாரிப்பதாக கூறி, 5.30 லட்சம் ரூபாய்" in which "ஆக்ரா" refers to this film "Agra". Jay removed it because Google Translate had faulty translation and did not translate correctly. DareshMohan (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, and the fix. No change in my vote though. Jay 💬 07:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of WP:NFILM nationally known critic refers to critics writing for a reliable national publication which gives them a national audience. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - consensus seems pretty clear. The first 'weak delete' is before sources were added. Neutral Fan (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it seems that there are 6 participants favouring and 4 opposing keep. But I'm still unsure about how WP:NFILM is met, feel free to join the discussion Jay linked. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butler International

edit
Butler International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to pass WP:NCORP, has no WP:RS in the article currently and a search did not yield significant results except for a sale in 2017 [1]. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:LISTED suggests, but does not imply, notability in the sense of WP:NCORP. (That being said, I've been skeptical of WP:LISTED as of late.) Having found nothing on Google (besides primary sources) and Google News, I will conduct a search on Newspapers.com once I'm granted access, likely in a few days. Even more perplexingly I can't find any patents for this company, so I'm wondering whether there's an alternate name in use here. Ovinus (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Butler International became Butler America Aerospace. However, the company is just a consulting firm who provides engineering work for other companies, so there is no opportunity for them to develop something patentable.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not covered in reliable sources. The references are 2 press releases and a self published page. According to WP:LISTED, "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case." It goes on to say the company should have independent press coverage and / or independent analyst reports. Hence, there is no inherent notability even if the company was listed on notable stock exchange. This guideline in particular says that about inherent notability WP:ORGSIG. Also, notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG. And, coverage of this company does not satisfy WP:ORGCRITE or GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have SIGCOV. Here are some, but there are more, if insufficient independence for WP:ORGIND is believed. Steve Quinn: please check these out. Ovinus (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] (discusses acquisition, appears independent)
    • [3] (also discusses acquisition, pretty good coverage, independence unclear)
    • [4] (deep coverage, a couple quotes from company execs but not enough for me to conclude intellectual non-independence. Also note that Butler Aviation is apparently a subsidiary of Butler International, along with two others, according to the second clipping)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus I agree these sources sufficiently satisfy SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. I am striking my "Delete" comment. I am ivoting Keep based on these sources (see below). Also, good job! I'd like to learn how to do deep searches like this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to clean up the article using new sources. The history of this company and its parents is a bit mucky, it seems. Butler Aviation was apparently for some time the largest private aviation company in America. [5] Ovinus (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atziluth

edit
Atziluth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect: this is an exceptionally minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right outside of discussion of the "Four Worlds", where it is already covered and with which it overlaps significantly. Even that article is not in particularly good nick, so anyone interested in producing verifiable, encyclopedic material on the subject would be better off starting there. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like no one is in favor of deleting this article so should it be Kept or Redirected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect the four to English translations (though I forgot what they are, one description I recall, which though wasn't likeley from primary source, might be something like spiritual, mental, astral, material worlds/planes).--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 02:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beri'ah

edit
Beri'ah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect: this is an exceptionally minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right outside of discussion of the "Four Worlds", where it is already covered and with which it overlaps significantly. Even that article is not in particularly good nick, so anyone interested in producing verifiable, encyclopedic material on the subject would be better off starting there. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was somewhat implied, but yes, I believe a redirect would be best - perhaps could have made that clearer. Have hopefully done so now. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be obvious that you think a redirect would be best when you WP:PRODed the article and then when the proposed deletion was declined immediately nominated it for deletion? Next time just propose a merge or boldly redirect it yourself.--Jahaza (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PRODs can also be redirected by the closer if the object of the redirect is clear - I have always stated that the material overlaps with Four Worlds. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought of it as somewhat poor form to boldly redirect, since that seems to bypass all forms of deletion-based process and discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like no one is favor of deleting this article so should it be Kept or Redirected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect the four to English translations (though I forgot what they are, one description I recall, which though wasn't likeley from primary source, might be something like spiritual, mental, astral, material worlds/planes)--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 02:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yetzirah

edit
Yetzirah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect: this is an exceptionally minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right outside of discussion of the "Four Worlds", where it is already covered and with which it overlaps significantly. Even that article is not in particularly good nick, so anyone interested in producing verifiable, encyclopedic material on the subject would be better off starting there. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect the four to English translations (though I forgot what they are, one description I recall, which though wasn't likeley from primary source, might be something like spiritual, mental, astral, material worlds/planes)--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 02:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, particularly the sources discussed by Central and Adams. The nominator's suggestion that old sources don't count is just wrong. All four of these related articles should be kept. Jacona (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assiah

edit
Assiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect: this is an exceptionally minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right outside of discussion of the "Four Worlds", where it is already covered and with which it overlaps significantly. Even that article is not in particularly good nick, so anyone interested in producing verifiable, encyclopedic material on the subject would be better off starting there. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also spelled Asiya without the terminal "h."Central and Adams (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Unfortunately, the sources found by Goldsztajn, which appear pertinent, have not been discussed. The rest of the discussion ist mostly guesswork. Sandstein 18:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Frąckiewicz

edit
Ryszard Frąckiewicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; appears to be a non-notable diplomat. A WP:BEFORE search provided little, and while there are a lot of references in the Polish Wikipedia article, these are primarily just list of who was an ambassador to what, with nothing seeming to provide WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Japan, Poland, and Australia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable. Google newspapers just shows routine coverage and nothing in depth. LibStar (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'd disagree that ambassadors of sovereign nations are not inherently notable. Added some references from the Polish Wikipedia. There are likely more references out there in Polish sources, so it's worth keeping this article until it can be proven those sources aren't obtainable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your first sentence, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the general consensus that has been reached is that ambassadors are not granted the inherent notability that WP:NPOL confers to, say, a legislator or a cabinet minister. Additionally, the onus is to prove that sources exist; I could not find any providing WP:SIGCOV with a thorough search. Regardless, thanks for transferring the sources from pl.wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)**[reply]
    • Consensus can change over time and I would also disagree with the premise of the essay you referenced in that an article should not be deleted if it can be cleaned up or expanded. Otherwise, it will just be recreated later from scratch when it could be brought up to the encyclopedia's standards without having to be recreated. I also appreciate your efforts as well and I am not saying this article should be indefinitely kept, only that it be given some time for people who know more about this subject than you or I to exhaust all possibilities of making this subject into something worthy of keeping. If that opportunity occurs and improvement still cannot happen, I would join your opinion here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "I'd disagree that ambassadors of sovereign nations are not inherently notable. " At least 70 ambassador articles have been deleted, the community consensus is clear on their inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the article sees more significant improvement than I'm equipped to give it. Indeed Wikipedia does have a consensus that diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing to be considered notable enough for an article — but the references here aren't really notability-supporting or GNG-worthy sources, but comprise mainly directory listings and primary sources, and even the one that seems more substantial on the surface, because it links to the first page of a 50-page book chapter, still actually just entails a glancing namecheck of Ryszard Frąckiewicz in a directory listing rather than substantive analytical coverage. The key to making a diplomat notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to offer simple verification that he existed, it's to offer substantive and well-sourced content about the real world impact of his work — specific accomplishments he attained in the job, specific effects he had on the diplomatic relationships between Poland and the countries he was ambassador to, etc. — but that's not at all evident from this article or its sourcing. As I can't read Polish, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have the ability to read Polish can extract considerably more substance from Polish language sources — but nothing here is notable enough as it stands right now. And we also don't keep articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist than anybody has actually found — once notability has been challenged, you have to show definitive proof that the sourcing needed to salvage the article definitely exists rather than just maybe. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I thought that ambassadors were inherently notable by the virtue of their possitions. WP:OUTCOMES does say otherwise, however (although that's a page with a format that needs updating - who added that conclusion there?). Sourcing is weak, there are passing mentions but little SIGCOV. Here is a one-sentence incomplete biography footnote. Something more substantial and in English appears here, bu it could be self-written author's biography blurb, hard to tell from the snippet. Weak delete since I find User:Bearcat's argument convincing and no sources to challenge him. PS. I'll ping User:Niegodzisie, an editor whom I consider an expert in the area of Polish officials, for his opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frąckiewicz served twice as an ambassador: to Australia and Japan. Apart from that, he was charge d'affaires to the United States. Heading embassies in three important (including the most one) capitalist countries during the time of communist Poland, he should be considered among top Polish diplomats of 1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, we can only assume about media coverage (which should have been sufficient) because he ended his career ca 30 years ago and Polish newspapers of that period are not digitized. He is mentioned among 4 most notable persons on the cemetery he rests on. Btw, I have improved the article. Niegodzisie (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - But Piotrus, what about that snippet of English biography you found? Maybe it's not self-written? Should we just ignore it? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I admit without checking the book in question in a library, it's a tough call. It's from 1978, he would be what, 47 then? Yeah, it could be by him, or not, double sigh. Hence my "weak" qualifier. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the sourcing, it does not appear to be significant to pass WP:GNG. As Bearcat mentions, an expectation is that the article consists more of "they exist" by describing some of their specific accomplishments or impact on policy. --Enos733 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Alcoa Care-free Homes. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoa House (Portland, Oregon)

edit
Alcoa House (Portland, Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This house was not on any historical register, was not a place of any historical events, and has (and will likely only ever have) a single article by an independent secondary source. The Alcoa house was one of 24 similar houses and its only arguable notability was that this was the only one in Oregon. I can see an argument for notability for an article about Alcoa houses in general, but not one specific example out of 24. A search online shows no other coverage of this home than the Oregonian article. WP:NBUILD states buildings "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" with an emphasis on plural "sources" as explicitly stated in WP:ONESOURCE: "a subject for which only one source can be cited is unlikely to merit a standalone article" PDXBart (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE It appears the creator of the article has not been informed of this AfD as required.Djflem (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In addition to the two sources from The Oregonian currently used in the article, there's an article from Realtor here. The Realtor source is not a listing; it is an article with a byline that is solely about the subject. The Oregonian did another piece on the house here, asking if it could have been saved from demolition. It was named by Pamplin Media Group as one of Portland's "Magnificent Modern Seven" here. Given that coverage, and the fact it was Portland's only Alcoa home, I believe this meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An article written by a realtor as a companion to its listing is not a reliable or independent source per WP:RS.
    The Pamplin article is pretty clearly WP:TRIVIALMENTION
    "Portland's only Alcoa home" - again, I don't think being unique to the state adds notability. There are hundreds or thousands of unique houses to the state and not every one needs a Wikipedia article.
    I think it's debatable whether the extra Oregonian article written one week after the original and provides no additional information counts as evidence for notability.
    The essential argument for me was that this house had absolutely no notability or coverage prior to being demolished. The event of the house being demolished is more notable than the house itself, and the Wikipedia article isn't about the demolition. PDXBart (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @PDXBart. To address your points:
    • Claudine Zap, the author of the Realtor article is a freelance writer and editor, not a realtor. That's why I pointed out the byline and stated it was an article, not in any way a listing. She's written for Realtor, Yahoo, New York Post, and SFGATE.
    • The Pamplin article is about the "Magnificent Modern Seven", during which the subject is discussed. I do not agree that it's trivial, given the article is dedicated to these seven homes. It's not a passing mention.
    • There is no guideline on time spacing of articles when looking at RS requirements. It's a separate article, and therefore counts toward notability.
    • The house existed as the sole Alcoa house in PDX (Oregon?) when it was built. That is the notability, and the demolition discussion only adds to it, IMO.
    Happy to discuss further. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the thoughtful feedback Kbabej. PDXBart (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for what it is (less than 10 lines of text), we can copy it to the Alcoa article. There likely won't be much more published about it and it's been demolished. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Oaktree b. The sourcing I've identified above can definitely flesh out the article. Stubs are incredibly common across WP, and this just needs expanded. The Realtor article is helpful, as is the third Oregonian piece. --Kbabej (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for mentioning the Alcoa article - I had searched and failed to find that. I think a merger is more appropriate than deletion PDXBart (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge >>>Alcoa Care-free Homes Djflem (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer: stub creator) per Kbabej and nominator's own comment "I think a merger is more appropriate than deletion". I'd rather see this content fleshed out and/or possibly merged than deleted altogether. This could have been discussed on the talk page. Again, I'd encourage the nominator to stop jumping to AfD so quickly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to Alcoa Care-free Homes per Nom and Another Believer as ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see split consensus between Keeping the article and Merging it with Alcoa Care-free Homes. Let's give it another week to solidify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Cole Hamels. Sandstein 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Strobel

edit
Heidi Strobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information to the article as well as a category, so I don't think it should be deleted. And1987 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Knoll Winery

edit
Oak Knoll Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This winery does not appear to have any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are several WP:TRIVIALMENTION from sources that are in some instances more than 30 years old. A search online does not reveal any meaningful secondary source coverage. Appears to be pretty WP:MILL to me and according to some sources online, has not been the largest wine producer in Washington County as the article states for at least a decade, and likely much longer. PDXBart (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see mentions but nothing substantial. However, I'm not able to review the many local papers, so if someone has access to those it would be good to check them out. The one "award" I was able to view was a 26-page single-spaced list of wines and wineries in which this winery appeared twice. Lamona (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aranos mine

edit
Aranos mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence that such a mine exists. There seems to have been some interest in prospecting for and developing coal resources in the area in the 2006–2011 period, but no actual mine seems to have been excavated. The article's statement, "The mine produces around 8 million tonnes of coal per year," is certainly not supported by the reference cited for it. Deor (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. New sources added, social media accounts removed and article has been rewritten since nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khan Bhatti

edit
Muhammad Khan Bhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a non notable career civil servant. Mccapra (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardus Wesling

edit
AfDs for this article:
Gerardus Wesling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Netherlands at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Stikkelman

edit
Johannes Stikkelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirect. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nayudu

edit
AfDs for this article:
Vijay Nayudu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NSPORTS and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No SIGCOV sources were found during or after the previous AfD over a year ago, and NSPORTS now requires that such sources be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 13:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does - all those GNG criteria apply on an individual basis. That is, we talk about the reliability, etc. of individual sources. Now, it sounds like you're saying that it needs multiple sources to pass GNG, but I was actually referring to WP:NSPORT, where for certain sportspeople one reliable source with significant coverage added to the article indicates that other reliable sources may exist. StAnselm (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that NSPORT is subordinate to GNG and thus requires multiple sources. Meeting SPORTCRIT #5 is a rebuttable indication that further sources exist. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "multiple sources are generally expected" in WP:GNG, and I failed to find a suitable second piece of coverage that could be cited alongside the 2013 article. I'm watchlisting this in case a further good source is identified, or if someone makes a compelling argument that the Bhushan book is a reliable source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think with the sourcing that we've found, the player's career and the time of his career, there's enough for a weak keep here. I imagine given the time of his career and the number of games played would lead to offline or non-English language GNG passing sourcing, although it would be nice if we had found some more by now. Can't see a suitable redirect here though if one is required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication has been given, in this discussion or from a search, that the subject passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is either a weak keep, with the sort of rationale that RF22 provides above, or a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers where a note can be added to summarise his career or someone can turn the thing into a table as it looks like there are going to be a lot of non-English speaking redirects coming up. I'd be happy with a redirect to this article as it was his state team and CA identifies it as the only "main" FC team he played for and the majority of his appearances were for the side. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep extended career at top-flight domestic level Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean anything...participation at the domestic level does not presume existence of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. The previous AFD closed saying that the subject likely passes GNG, was a unanimous Keep and that was in 2021.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Weissmueller

edit
Zach Weissmueller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

while being a senior producer/reporter is great for a resume, it doesn't confer notability. There is very little to no coverage of Weissmueller himself, instead all the sources are written by him. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Moeder

edit
Caroline Moeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrus Remy

edit
Andrus Remy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Dragon Prince and Dragon Star trilogies#Characters. Two editors favored Deletion while one favored a Redirect and one said they wouldn't object to a redirect so as the closer's decision, I went with the redirect option. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Dragon Prince

edit
AfDs for this article:
Characters of Dragon Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A totally unrefenced plot summary in the form of a character list. Not much we can do with this piece of WP:FANCRUFT, rescue-wise, I am afraid. Unencyclopedic plot summary, failing WP:NLIST, WP:GNG, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decoursey Simon

edit
Decoursey Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Burt

edit
Theo Burt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than a few mentions of participating in festivals, I don't see any in depth coverage of Burt or his works, under this name or any pseudonyms. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly agree in retrospect. The muddled history of both pages, as their creator, in the first place indicates this. I don't mind their deletion. TreeLethargy (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TreeLethargy:: Thanks again for your spirit of good faith. Just remember that not everything can qualify for Wikipedia due to our notability rules. Per you own assessment of Summer Mix, I will redirect that article to Burt's article, which is the usual procedure for non-notable albums (see the "Albums" sub-section here). Now we only have to worry about whether Burt's article shall survive. By the way, you wrote a lot of very nice prose about Summer Mix (still visible here for the time being), so consider submitting it in other forums that discuss Burt's works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mises Caucus. The SPLC source is roughly acceptable and the Reason video is of rather high quality and usefulness, but the rest of the references only mention Michael Heise in passing in reference to the caucus. DatGuyTalkContribs 11:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Heise

edit
Michael Heise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable party founder - while there's some minor coverage, there is nothing significant and the party itself is of little notability as it's an off shoot of two major parties. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertarian Party (United States) is the third largest party in the United States, and this person is the founder of the caucus that now controls the messaging and party as a whole. A short, or stub article at minimum is both notable and reasonable. The sources provided two are on the RS list as well, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't coverage of him though, it's all about the party. Redirect it to the caucus but he isn't notable on his own. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least one or more of the RSes cited is entirely devoted to coverage of Michael Heise and the recent LP Mises Caucus majority. This article should be retained. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which would that be? isn't about him, this is basically an interview with little editorial content, not about him, not about him, probably the most significant information about him but still not in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmery Edward

edit
Emmery Edward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lastic

edit
Francis Lastic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Laurencin

edit
Junior Laurencin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benhamadi Ybnou Charaf

edit
Benhamadi Ybnou Charaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. I found this source, but unsure if it meets GNG [22], even then one source is not enough. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per criterion G5, creation by banned or blocked user. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Govt Senior Secondary School Chabutra Khas

edit
Govt Senior Secondary School Chabutra Khas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL Paul W (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khwajagan Naqvi

edit
AfDs for this article:
Khwajagan Naqvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the page is unclear and lacks even basic context, let alone notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Nomination withdrawn after the addition of new sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Gamal

edit
Amar Gamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been effectively unsourced for years. Can't find anything that would meet our notability standards. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC) With thanks to @DaffodilOcean: I withdraw this nom, as the sourcing has dramatically improved. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Levin, Jordan (2002-01-10). "Orientalia celebrates the exotic". The Miami Herald. p. 300. Retrieved 2022-08-12.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumika Nanda Reang

edit
Bhumika Nanda Reang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician. Sources cited provide only passing mentions, and a search finds nothing better; fails WP:GNG. Elected to a district assembly, therefore doesn't meet WP:NPOL either. Earlier declined at AfC, and re-draftified a couple of times, but creating editor insists on moving it to the main space, hence here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliia Roza

edit
Aliia Roza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable "spy" turned celebrity - the sources are all tantamount to gossip rags, from TMZ to NYP and Ladbible, which while not deprecated are nothing more than gossip outlets and clickbait sites. There is no meaningful in depth coverage of Roza. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Procedural close; the article was hijacked and since restored to the original version on a notable topic.(non-admin closure) MB 15:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazir Ahmed Kataria

edit
Nazir Ahmed Kataria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weesperstraat 113–117

edit
Weesperstraat 113–117 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of any notability found. Fram (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I cannot find anything that could make this notable. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Canizio

edit
Bianca Canizio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Canizio named All-American again", Cherokee Scout (NC), December 17, 2014 (713 Words)
"Murphy alum Canizio earns all-American for third year", November 25, 2015 (406 Words)
"Canizio seeks pro venture", Cherokee Scout (NC), June 15, 2016 (523 Words)
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Cherokee Scout is the local newspaper of Murphy, North Carolina, a small town of less than 2,000 people. Cherokee County itself is home to less than 30,000 people. The Scout is almost certainly not a reliable source due to how small the catchment area is. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP say that small papers are unreliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small newspapers usually don't have the resources to maintain a proper editorial and fact-checking system; according to LinkedIn the Scout employs only 10 people for example. They generally engage in hyperlocal routine coverage and churnalism; and they like all local news are notoriously vulnerable to publishing paid content masquerading as proper news. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The first source given above is not SIGCOV. It states only basic information and provides negligible context or commentary. WP:100WORDS is an essay and I'm not sure how widely accepted it is. The second source is better in terms of coverage, but is not independent: It includes several quotes from the subject. The rest of the sources in the article are database sources, not indicative of notability. As to local news coverage... I disfavor using such newspapers to establish notability, as Devonian Wombat notes. Ovinus (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided by other users giving the subject enough coverage to pass GNG. The sources provided by User:BennyOnTheLoose are acceptable and can not be discounted solely because they are from a smaller publications. The WLOS source above is certainly GNG approved as well. And others are questionable but there is enough overall independent significant coverage for this article to be kept. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The WLOS article clearly counts towards GNG (some users are saying that including quotes from an interview discount it from being SIGCOV? Show me that policy please), and I remain unconvinced that small-town papers cannot contribute to GNG, and as we have four pieces of SIGCOV from the Cherokee Scout in addition to the article from WLOS, we have enough for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are not secondary or independent, so do not contribute to establishing notability (per BASIC). The issues with "small town papers" has been noted above; their reliability is questionable and they commonly publish community submitted articles without any editorial oversight or acknowledgement. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group of Belarusian military specialists in Venezuela

edit
Group of Belarusian military specialists in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article reads like it is telling a story per WP:OR. Most of the content is unsourced.

It is very common of countries to provide assistance to each other when it comes to developing military technologies. I don't see why this trivial subject even needs own article per WP:NOPAGE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Shaikh (influencer)

edit
Faisal Shaikh (influencer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR ( The actor is in only one TV show as a contestant (Not Winner) and There is also in the web series but the source are all mentioned as Tik Tok star. It has been deleted twice before. Now this is the third time in Afd. [25], [26]) PravinGanechari (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was really unaware that this article has been deleted before in AfD. I was just surfing google and saw hundreds of articles in trend about his participation in the show Khatron Ke Khiladi. I just created the article of him. —Botu Yadav (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should not be delayed because the subject has notability. You can check the references. He has been in a leading role of a Hindi language series too and now a part of a reality show as a contestant. Rejoy2003 (talk)

I haven't mentioned above tha being a "contestant" is a claim to his notability. The guy has been into a leading role for a web show/series. The rest I'll leave it to the reviewers or admins Rejoy2003 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Aslani

edit
Amin Aslani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no significant coverage. Poorly sourced. Some sources are not considered as major references. A source like CICinema is not reliable because everybody in Iran knows that it has many misinformation. Of course many people go to some school, but what's the reason to mention it in Wikipedia when there's no special or notable achievement? A PhD student with not a single article? not in English (like in JSTOR or any other platform), nor in Persian (check irandoc.ac.ir, ensani.ir). Anybody can publish books but that alone doesn't make one notable. Editing some short films and making some alleged (but with no source) short films does not make people notable or eligible for an English article in Wikipedia. Having parents with Wikipedia pages is not enough to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Even the Persian Wikipedia article related to this article/person is removed. This article smells like a self-promotion (reeks of WP:PROMO) which is very common nowadays in Iran. There are many other persons of the same name by the way. messymo (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Soccer in Saba. I cannot redirect to Football in Saba as that page is itself a redirect. A page move can always be considered next. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saba national soccer team

edit
Saba national soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short version: it doesn't have one. Saba is an island with less than 2,000 inhabitants, and doesn't even have one actual full size soccer pitch. They aren't a member of any soccer organization. They don't have a local competition. But from time to time, the, well, village team played matches against a neighbouring small island (population just over 3,000 people). Lacks notability or even real existence (it isn't even a "nation" so the term "national team" is rather loosely applied here). Fram (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that within the discussion, two distinct redirect targets have been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Arcadia in the arts and popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another failure of WP:IPC (also, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:V - mostly unreferenced, and even WP:OR. Unsourced definition of the concept, unclear inclusion criteria, pretty much the usual list of media which use the term Arcadia. It's contains a ton of stuff like "The mythic world that adorns the album covers of the rock band Asia, specifically the albums Alpha (1983) and Astra (1985). The album Astra was tentatively titled Arcadia." or "In Yu-Gi-Oh! 5Ds, there is an organisation called the Arcadia movement." Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taqwa International School

edit
Taqwa International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indian primary school in Riyadh, closed in 2012 for flouting building regulations. Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article includes two newspaper references from Arab News which does an 'in-depth' coverage of the school, this one from 2007 as well as this one from 2011. In my opinion, it's enough for establishment of notability. Derivator2017 (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read those articles? "Taqwa International School, a new addition on the educational scene of Riyadh is the brainchild of a group of highly-educated, like-minded and motivated group of individuals. They all have a common vision of imparting quality education with equal emphasis on character building." An interview with the director! The second one is bylined 'Arab News Staff' (which means 'press release') and opines, “We have seen phenomenal growth without compromising our core values. We believe the school re-location will be a welcome change to students and parents,” Taqwa International School Chairman Rizwan Zahoor said, adding “This is what matters because this is our underlying commitment to parents.” SIGCOV? Nah. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are clearly based on press releases and hence, do not satisfy WP:INDY. 174.212.212.9 (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I concur with Alexandermcnabb's (and IP's) assessment of the quality of the sources: Only an interview & press release. The ones from Daijiworld are both about the same incident, more or less, which is the closure of the school. I couldn't find any more coverage, and thus we have only 2 acceptable sources, one short of the minimum. And even then, both are about a single event – if the school is only notable for its closure, with coverage of that only by one source, it's far too little. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umid Najjari

edit
AfDs for this article:
Umid Najjari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are to article subject's own poetic works or reviews of those works, not to the subject himself. Does not appear to meet WP:NCREATIVE, awards mentioned are not notable awards, no evidence that subject has had broad literary influence on Azerbaijani or Persian poetry, his work as publicist and translator do not appear to have relevance. A loose necktie (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you are hearing me. I have used Google Translate to read these articles-- some of the links you provided are only links to his poems; others are links to discussion of these poems. In order for us to host an article on this person, we need references that discuss him, ones that tell us where he grew up, where he studied, who has influenced him, etc., not analysis of his works (though these are helpful). I understand you feel very strongly about his poetry, and firmly believe he is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. But we can't create the substance of an article about him by reading critiques of his poems. Even the article that describes his being given an award at a university is all about the awards ceremony and recounts who was there and did what-- it doesn't tell us anything about him other than that he got an award (or at least, I didn't see anything-- correct me if you feel I am wrong). The article that mentions an international award he had won, and which states that he himself notified them that he got the award, is a perfect example of the kind of coverage that does NOT augment a notability argument because it lacks WP:INDEPENDENCE. A loose necktie (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your request now. These resources are also available. Official sites of the United States
https://spillwords.com/author/umidnajjari/
https://www.wordsandworldsmagazine.com/current-issue-aktuelle-ausgabe/poetry-gedichte/umid-najjari/
Belgium
https://www.iwabogdani.org/2021/12/14/poems-by-umid-najjari/ 5.134.52.249 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Mr.A loose necktie (talk) I understand your position very well. Yes, you are right that I have great love for human creativity. The arguments you mentioned are not unreasonable, but they are not a reason to delete a person's page. In the links here, the person's creativity has been evaluated. If he was an insignificant poet, he would not have been invited to international poetry festivals. I am familiar with the WP:INDEPENDENCE. And I know the requirements for individuals there. There it is written that in addition to the degree of importance of the person, the work done by him is also important. In the links above, Umid Najjari's work is widely described.I will put the important parts mentioned in WP:INDEPENDENCE here.--Rövşən İşık (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Dialogue for Environmental Action

edit
AfDs for this article:
International Dialogue for Environmental Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was soft deleted a couple of months ago, but was recently accepted as an article again. The article creation was a mistake. The article is purely promotional for the subject of the article (WP:G11), who is the daughter of Azerbaijan's authoritarian leader. There is no independent reliable sourcing about this organization. There is nothing to indicate that it is notable. The administrator who accepted the article creation says the article is notable because the regime in Azerbaijan created a stamp about the organization – I would strongly dispute that a father making a stamp for his daughter's organization is an indicator of notability. Per WP's notability guidelines, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" – this article fails that basic requirement. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Thenightaway (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was soft deleted a couple of months ago, was re-written by me, and published by Graeme Bartlett. The article was reviewed and then re-published as “reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, as instructed in Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG), were the only sources used. So, it is “presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list” (WP:GNG).  
All information from the previous version of the article was deleted and re-written from blank, so it would portray the subject of an existing organization by using only reliable third-party sources, such as the official websites of the UIA and the UNEP, both organizations that work under the UN.
Most importantly, the reconstruction of the page was made specifically to represent the subject so it will follow Wikipedia’s core policy, NPOV:
- No opinions were presented by fact or vice versa (WP:YESPOV)
- No assertions were presented as facts (WP:YESPOV)
- A nonjudgmental language was used (WP:YESPOV)
The only violation of NVOP was made by Thenightaway in his explanation for why to delete the article. “I would strongly dispute that a father making a stamp for his daughter's organization is an indicator of notability” clearly represents their personal views of an existing regime and does not follow NPOV policy. Mriogrech (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, this editor has made very few edits and a lot of them revolve around adding puffery to pages related to Leyla Aliyeva. I strongly suspect undisclosed WP:COI. Second, the sources in question (that the editor claims are indicative of notability) are just lists or listings published by international organizations. This particular organization is one of countless organizations that are mentioned on those lists – those listings are not in any way indicative of notability. How could this kind of sourcing be indicative of notability:[27]. It's akin to saying that any company that exists in publicly available records maintained by the US government deserves its own Wikipedia page. Thenightaway (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having an interest in a specific subject does not mean you have a conflict of interests, as it is shown that the re-written article follows all NPOV rules (WP:YESPOV).
After rewriting it, it now follows Wikipedia rules (which it hadn’t before), both NPOV and the use of reliable sources (WP:GNG).  
I firmly believe this page should be portrayed as it contains valid information about an existing organization, and qualifies to be a stand-alone article (WP:GNG). Mriogrech (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep". Given the politics of Azerbaijan it seems clear that an organisation supported by the president is notable.Rathfelder (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem clear to me at all. What notability guideline does that logic correspond to? Should we also create a Wikipedia page for his favorite restaurant? Thenightaway (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Queen Zixi of Ix. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ix (Oz)

edit
Ix (Oz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just WP:PLOT details. Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transit Game

edit
Transit Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a short film, referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability and making no attempt at a notability claim that would satisfy WP:NFO. There's also a direct conflict of interest here, as the article has been extensively edited by an editor with the username "TransitGame". Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Marshall (footballer)

edit
Shane Marshall (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triston Sandy

edit
Triston Sandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [32] are trivial, and therefore fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodlands, Indiana

edit
The Woodlands, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was redirected to its enclosing township, but I have reverted that because I do not agree that such redirection is an appropriate option for dealing with a non-notable subdivision: for that is what this is. Some developer, in the vainglorious days of mid-1990s real estate, carved little niches into the forest and plunked down a series of McManors (they are on the small side for proper McMansions) along a suitably winding drive, surely advertised in the Indy Star's real estate section, but otherwise unremarked. The Eagle Township article, like this article as written, uses the euphemism "unincorporated community" rather than calling this place what it is. It's not a term we should use and I doubt the virtue of listing some subset of subdivisions simply because GNIS happened to note them. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There are assertions of notability and non-notability, but nobody is discussing the sources. Sigh. Sandstein 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mile 16

edit
Mile 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had already nominated Mile 17 for AfD without realising there's also a Mile 16 article. Please God there aren't another 15 of these. Fails WP:GNG; WP:GEOLAND, utterly without note. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE (rename) can be appropriate: Issues to be addressed by changing the page title (and perhaps then expanding or improving its content). This can happen at AFD especially, if the article could be suitable for Wikipedia, but is created under an inappropriate title, and was nominated for deletion, but consensus agrees it is fixable if the title is changed. Depends on the due diligence (or lack thereof) done in research BEFORE making the nomination and subsequent investigation of the information/RS currently available online added to the article since. The Christmas Island spin demonstrates a rather disingenous distraction & lack of willingness to address that. What has your research found? (Generally about the history, land use, and placenaming in Cameroon and specifically about this place to contribute to the improvement the encyclopedia?)Djflem (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those wishing to rename provide evidence of the notability of Bolifamba?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wish to join the discussion with your question, please do. (And review the sources). Can you remove the relist and make you comment in the appropriate way or close the AfD in the appropriate way? Thank you. Djflem (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aside from some WP:ILIKEIT arguments that I am ignoring, the "keep" arguments here are largely based on WP:LISTN and the coverage that number of spotify followers has received. The "delete" arguments largely do not dispute this coverage, but point to WP:VENDOR and WP:SINGLEVENDOR as reasons why this isn't suitable for inclusion; or in plain English, the facts that this is essentially a music chart from a single vendor, and that it is never going to be stable. I find the arguments favoring deletion stronger, and they have not been substantively rebutted. There is a fundamental issue with an article that's going to be permanently inaccurate. There is also a substantive numerical tilt towards deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed artists on Spotify

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of most-followed artists on Spotify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I noticed a discussion was started last year and the result was to keep the article based on the topic being notable i.e. a legitimate topic of interest. However, as I understand it, people are now sourcing direct from Spotify and so these numbers could fluctuate drastically? We don't use Spotify, iTunes, Deezer or AppleMusic (or any other vendor charts) across Wikipedia because they're non-static and change all the time (see WP:RECORDCHARTS). Futhermore WP:VENDOR also says "It may be impossible to provide a stable source for the alleged ranking".... For such reasons, such rankings are usually avoided as Wikipedia content. On that basis, I know people feel strongly about such lists, but I would argue that a single vendor one that can change daily, monthly, weekly is not encyclopaedic. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: hasn't the list always been sourced directly from the artists follower counts on their profiles though? I'm not aware of any chart that provides this data. Secondary media sources occasionally cover when artists reach certain milestones, but no one ever constantly publishes detailed data about it because followers are a dynamic stat. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No it was previously sourced from Chart Masters which is a copyright violation and mirror of Spotify and also out of date. Follower count literally fluctuates every minute meaning this page could be constantly out of date every time its published. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh. I forgot about that site since it's an unofficial source, so I got a little confused when you said "...other vendor chart" in your original post because ik there's no official chart that tracks Spotify followers, not even Spotify has an official list or ranking of that. I've been updating the page for about maybe 2 yrs roughly (iirc) and take stats directly from the artist profiles (I also added the secondary sources in the lead) since there's no other way to get the most up-to-date data. Secondary sources have covered follower stats over the years for various artists, but mostly do so for major milestones as opposed to publishing constant/regular updates. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and WP:NOT. We document things like "number ones", but not the entire charts. If you want to know the most followes Spotify artist, you should be going to Spotify, not Wikipedia. We shouldn't be a barebones mirror to Spotify. Sergecross73 msg me 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: But on Spotify it isn't clear which artists have more followers than others. if you mean the artist rating in the box at the bottom of the page, it is based on monthly listeners which has a separate list.--Hamedkazemi2 (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The follows on spotify can be upped by bots, stream-farming is a thing as well. They really don't give much information and can be fakes/inflated. None of this is much for wiki notability, unless we create a discussion about stream farms and bot-inflation of numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Serge's reasoning particularly. Spotify is a massive organisation, I'm sure that info can be found in dozens of listicles/data-vacuuming sites across the internet. WP has higher standards than that and this does not meet them for the reasons mentioned above. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also the same question/concern of Piotrus. Where the numbers came from? Or I have the impression those numbers still taken from ChartMasters instead of Spotify. Please advise. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its my understanding that the numbers come from Chart Masters, Twitter and a range of other sources including the artist's page on Spotify but is visible when you have the app/desktop version installed as opposed to the browser version. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for prior to when I put the page on my watchlist, but I take the numbers directly from the artist profiles on the desktop app. However, like Lil-unique1 said, it's a dynamic stat, so the list can never truly be up-to-date at any given point, regardless of whether the stats come from a primary source or a reliable secondary source. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument doesn't explain why per WP:VENDOR this list should be kept. We keep any rankings or chart listing tabulated by WP:SINGLEVENDOR so why should this be any different? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider also the option of Merging content proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case Spotify is unreliable as a primary source first and foremost, however adequate secondary sources (to which WP:VENDOR does not apply) have been presented from which an article could be written and therefore anything else is just cleanup. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, the secondary sources are still reporting on a vendor/retail. WP:VENDOR and WP:RECORDCHARTS both present the case that commerce or single retailers are not appropriate rankings. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VENDOR does not apply as there are stable, independent sources confirming the ranking as being relevant. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I mean. WP:RECORDCHART and WP:VENDOR both explain that rankings based on a single vendor are not encyclopaedic or appropriate for use on wikipedia. Although secondary sources confirm the content, the content they are confirming is still a single vendor chart/ranking which we would not deem usable in song articles, album articles or discographies. Although being popular on spotify has received coverage in reliable sources, we still would list it as relevant. Vendor says, When only self-published by the vendor, i.e. no reliable independent source confirming the ranking as being relevant, the ranking would usually carry insufficient weight to be mentioned in any article. Just because sources say "X artist is the most followed on spotify" does not mean that the ranking carries sufficient weight. That's the point I'm trying to make. An artist's popularity on Spotify (Amazon, Tidal, etc.) is a component of their overall chart success. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Ovinus (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Weak keep – passes WP:NLIST. The following amount to significant coverage. They aren't the cream of the crop in source quality, but I believe they establish notability. Ovinus (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed the point per WP:VENDOR and the fact that spotify rankings are not used in discographies due to being single vendor rankings. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of WP:VENDOR—which I missed and is actually new to me, so I thank you for duly questioning me—is that it is intended for single-vendor rankings which involve subjective or secretive selection. The "bestseller lists at Amazon" which the policy cites involve much more secrecy; correct me if I'm wrong, but Amazon does not post how many books are sold. List of most-subscribed YouTube channels has been speedily kept on numerous occasions, despite being a single-vendor list/ranking. Most concerns about this list apply to that list and vice versa. Follower counts are simply numbers, and unless duplicity is suspected on Spotify's part, I don't see the issue. Ovinus (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise a great point, though I will say WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a great avenue to go down when it comes to AfD. A single vendor ranking like YouTube or spotify only serves as part of an artists' commercial or chart performance. Other vendors exist. If we go down the primary sources option its potentially always out of date, if we go down secondary sources we're supporting copyright vios and people will always update direct from spotify. I don't think its accurate or encyclopedic to report on a realtime ranking. If it was an annually published list fair enough but a realtime always changing list we would not report for song or album popularity per WP:RECORDCHARTS, where we specifically don't allow spotify or iTunes chart positions. I see this exactly the same. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a suboptimal argument, especially because VENDOR was not cited at that AfD, as far as I can see. (I'm not sure about the history of VENDOR; do those AfDs predate the rule?) I do think the comparison does show that there is no strong, blanket precedent to delete this type of article. I'm not entirely convinced by the WP:RECORDCHARTS argument, as that seems to apply to individual articles, not broader articles like this one. It is also not clear whether that guideline's writers considered this case. If we go down the primary sources option its potentially always out of date—well, if we use only secondary sources it's guaranteed to be always out of date! :P I don't see what is wrong with using Spotify as a primary source here, unless, again, we suspect Spotify is being deceptive. I will think about it some more, though. Ovinus (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thought about it some more. Leaning toward delete now, not only because of reading between the lines of WP:SINGLENETWORK but also because of the verifiability concerns. If coverage of this list were overwhelming, as in the list of YouTube channels by sub count, I would say keep. But there aren't that many sources here. Ovinus (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, passed WP:NLIST, there's sources available, and while I may not be interested in it, it is notable to be one of the most followed on a streaming platform. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not address WP:VENDOR which states commercial rankings are not appropriate. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. How can this be kept accurate and updated? How often does this change? How is the information published? What if the availability of information changes? I fear a maintenance nightmare here. Jacona (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments only. Firstly all charts have been manipulated in one method or another, whether sending a man to the record store to buy extra copies of a 45, or giving the store owner extra cash for false accounting, or done by bots. They've always been manipulated, not an argument for keeping one chart and not another. The updating of the article can be clarified by making the date of the chart more apparent (at the bottom of the list where it says 1st August 2022 is not prominent enough, but correct at certain date should satisfy that, WP is, at best, a reporting encyclopedia, not an up-to-date platform! I also assume that Spotify and other major music platforms submit stats to Billboard (etc) to compile their charts, so this is only a component part of Billboard charts. FWIW, I still can't make my mind up keep or delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom and User:Hamedkazemi2's comments that the "list should be expanded and updated everyday." The list has 54 references and 50 are from Spotify. It doesn't matter if they are "deceptive" or not the content becomes outdated rather quickly and is the companies reporting venue. At least List of most-streamed artists on Spotify has secondary sourcing. At best we can get a historical snapshot (June 29, 2022) per Guinness World Records but what is the encyclopedia value? Fans of Lady Gaga might be interested that she is now listed in 50th place. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think that this article is notable enough to be kept but the references should be changed. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 01:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources do you have in mind that prove notability/should be on the article instead? Can't say I've seen anything here so far that would cover that, especially for keeping the list up-to-date. QuietHere (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand your stance or your suggestion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments in favor of keeping have generally not addressed why WP:SINGLENETWORK does not apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as passing WP:NLIST; yes, we do cite Spotify for the data itself, but that doesn't change that the topic is notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But by citing Spotify directly we are explicitly violating WP:SINGLEVENDOR which is the whole point of the nomination in the first place. Not to call you or anyone out specifically, but most of the keep votes here have been based on notability when that's not the violation the nom is concerned with. Surely that invalidates all of those votes, right? QuietHere (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SINGLEVENDOR is applied to record charts. The number of followers an artist has on a platform is not a record chart, and so it does not apply in this case. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - a chart is just a ranking based on sales or streaming. Its a measure of popularity for a single or album. List of most-followed artists on Spotify is effectively a chart of artists popularity, much like Billboard's Top Artists chart. The only difference is that it isn't officially published by an independent body. Even if it was, there would be no way we would allow it - regardless of the "independent" publisher because it was based on a Single Vendor. I don't see why the same logic doesnt apply here. Additionally vendor rankings are not suitable for use on wikipedia. Third issue - its potentially always out of date. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that WP:SINGLEVENDOR overrides WP:N in a case like this. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Huynh

edit
Thomas Huynh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. None of the references in the article are third-party reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. They are all either non-independent sources or are discussing the book (for example the Vanderbilt student paper article which can be found archived here). The Authors@Google video is of him speaking and is a primary source (and not a particularly choosy host either, as their playlist has over 1,600 videos of various authors speaking).

The World Peace Game source is down but can be found archived here and is literally just a copy-paste of the subject's website. As for the Bloomberg article it's dead and I can't find any archive of it, but the URL makes it clear it's from their blog which suggests that it may fall under WP:RSOPINION, but I have no way to know if it's a trivial mention or what the context is, or if the article ever even existed, but even if it did and was not an opinion piece it would be the single source showing notability, and articles require multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Notability's just not there.

I searched online and could find nothing else that would support notability; there were a few Google Books results that quoted the book he wrote, but none that addressed him directly. Be aware when searching for sources that he is not the only person with the name Thomas Huynh so there's a few sources about people who happen to have the same name but are not this article's subject. Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is remarkable and significant is the importance of the book (along with the annotations) and the website (Sonshi.com) in providing a different perspective on how Sun Tzu’s principles can be applied in business and to inform better social culture. The book has been through five editions and is routinely cited as one of the major translations (see for example the recent review of Michael Nylan’s translation [33]).

2. The introduction to an interview with Bob Morris is used to establish the Bloomberg Businessweek accolade. Interviews are notoriously unreliable but the information cited comes from the introduction to that interview.

3. There is now a current link to the Vanderbilt website regarding his book and his time an Executive MBA there. This is an article written by a member of Vanderbilt’s press staff for Vanderbilt Business, a publication of the Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt. It’s not an entirely neutral, or independent source but it’s unusual for the magazine to publish an article about one of its students.

4. There have been thousands of Google Talks since its inception in November, 2008, but it seems hard to argue that Google invites speakers (who don’t work at Google) who are not notable.

5. The Google Talk cite also provides further evidence of how Huynh “teaches Sun Tzu's principles in business through Sonshi.com and as an conference speaker.” Novus Intellectus (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Novus Intellectus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Novus Intellectus - the problem is sources, and I suggest looking at WP:N to understand what is required to support an article. Things like author bios (usually provided by the author), blog posts, and the author's own site do not support notability. You need reliable, third-party, independent sources. Lamona (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lamona, I'm grateful for your help. You probably noticed from the revision history that I tried to work on these issues but with little success. Novus Intellectus (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)— Novus Intellectus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If your argument is that his translation is important, then that's an argument for the notability of the book, not the author, as notability is not inherited. However there's not even notability for the book itself as far as I can tell but that's a whole different discussion. As for Talks at Google, notability is not their determining factor in who to bring in for a talk, and is not what I am trying to argue. The point about the Talks at Google source is that it is a primary source, as all of the content comes directly from the author. As the author is obviously not independent of himself, it is not an independent source. Non-independent sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Novus Intellectus I believe i have fixed much of link issues to third-party sources, one being a published book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExchangeFORD (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — ExchangeFORD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You did add a lot of blogs and extremely trivial mentions, and the book you added is an example of a trivial mention (and what is being discussed in that book is Huynh's translation, not Huynh himself, aside from the initial "thanks for letting me use your work in my own" comment). None of these are significant coverage in third-party reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, as they are either not reliable (such as the blogs), or trivial. This article's subject simply doesn't have the coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article on Wikipedia, and your changes do not address this. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "World Peace" book did more than be gracious about the permission but on page 255: "I thank Thomas Huynh, founder of Sonshi.com, the Web's leading and most respected resource for Sun Tzu's Art of War" (https://www.google.com/books/edition/World_Peace_and_Other_4th_Grade_Achievem/bVxN2v1u1yQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=John hunter world peace game thomas huynh&pg=PA255&printsec=frontcover). The other source was from another published book "The Art of War for Small Business" that referenced Huynh's book eleven (11) times. They both seem to have high regard for Huynh and his work. Not "trivial" mentions as you contend. ExchangeFORD (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you just quoted is a trivial mention, and not only that but is just a word-for-word copy of the author's website itself (go to "About the authors" and you'll see the same exact phrasing). There is nothing you could take from that to write into an article; it is trivial. As for the other book it does mention Huynh's book several times but as you said, it goes into (some) detail about Huynh's book, not about Huynh himself (though a lot of those references appear to be citations, not discussions of Huynh's book). This article is about Huynh, so we need significant coverage of Huynh. That's why the sources you added don't support notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend to include a promotional page for a website builder in those sources?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psycle

edit
AfDs for this article:
Psycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to not be a notable application, the sourcing appears to be entirely limited to a few primary sources, and a couple of trade publications which I cannot access. A search brought up nothing that would contribute to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Found one passing mention in a Google Books search. No reliable sources elsewhere. Most incoming wiki links are from lists without indication of notability. ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage found to demonstrate notability. Also, lack of sources mean most of the article is without proper references to verify its contents. Lack of sources mean these issues cannot be addressed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There's clear consensus here that this topic isn't currently notable; if someone wishes to actively work on it in draftspace they may request draftification, but draftifying isn't appropriate if we're just waiting for the topic to maybe become notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders–Ravens rivalry

edit
Commanders–Ravens rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's tough to even really call it a rivalry at this point. This "rivalry" is just based on geography and, even then, sports rivalries are not presumed notable. There have been 7 regular season meetings since 1997, the teams play in different conferences, and only meet every 4 years. They have never met in the playoffs. 7 games in 25 years with no meetings in the playoff is not a notable rivalry and should not have its own article. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no news sources which establish notability for "Beltway Bowl". "Battle of the Beltway" is used in other contexts (Texas HS football, baseball, etc), but I do not see sources establishing notability for the Ravens and Commanders. Namely, I do not see any article which discusses the topic in depth. Short history, not many meetings, no especially notable games. We should be careful about assigning notability arbitrarily to sports rivalries, and reserve it only for especially notable situations. The creator did a good job with the article, but I don't see any reference to notable matchups, just a list of statistics. It's not enough. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add - will be happy to change my vote if more sources and content are found/created, as promised above. Further, if the ultimate result is delete, no prejudice against draftifying it. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per creator: Draft After conducting my own research, I agree that the article does not reach notability guidelines. The only evidence supporting the article are past games with playoff implications for both teams. I am requesting the article to become a draft if the rivalry touches ground in the future (i.e. Super Bowl matchup, owner/fan dispute, etc). Vataxevader (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Vataxevader, I just wanted to mention that drafts that go without an edit for 6 months are eligible for deletion under the WP:G13 criteria. If you plan on keeping it for a while you may be better off having the page moved to your user space without an AfC submission template, as pages within the user page that contain an AfC template are also eligible for deletion under G13. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Commence with deleting. Vataxevader (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I don't have the ability to do so and we may need to let this AfD playout unless a passing admin happens to decide to wrap this up. I do see that you've copied the content to your sandbox just in case though, so that's good. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_11&oldid=1105334857"