Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 17	January 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Wonsley Worlobah

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

Fails notability. Being elected to a non-major office and just existing does not warrant notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshens (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have quite a lot articles on Minneapolis Council members. Mccapra (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment, leaning Keep~~ - As always, looks like this is down to WP:GNG. My attempt at satisfying WP:THREE to focus the discussion is: ^[1]^[2]^[3] So, two pretty good sources (one national, one regional), and a small smattering of passing mentions in the Star Tribune and other regional news sources. Overall, I would characterize the coverage as weak, so this might be WP:TOOSOON. Suriname0 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Michaels, Samantha. ""Defund the police" was a rallying cry in 2020. Minneapolis is about to vote on what that means". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
^ Duggan, JD (2021-08-18). "Democratic Socialist challenges Green Party incumbent in Minneapolis Ward 2". Sahan Journal. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
^ Navratil, Liz. "Robin Wonsley Worlobah once again declared winner after recount in Minneapolis council race". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-19.

Keep Per MPR News, she is "Minneapolis' first Black Democratic Socialist on the City Council" (2021), and continues to receive coverage for her policy positions (MPR News, 2022) (Star Tribune, 2022) (Star Tribune Editorial Board, 2022), so the article can be expanded due to the sustained coverage supporting her WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In consideration of the MPR coverage, I've updated my vote to Keep. I'm not sure how meaningful the ongoing passing mentions of her policy positions are, but it does show evidence of ongoing sustained coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is an elected official in a major U.S. city and is the subject of news media coverage, as opposed to being mentioned merely in passing. Minnemeeples (talk) 07:06, 20 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C10H14N2 (film)

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

Non-notable unreleased film, no evidence production ever began on film, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This film fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 23:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. - SUN EYE 1 03:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NFF guideline for unfinished films. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Onmyway22 talk 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, unfinished film. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass WP:NFF Juggyevil (talk) 16:23, 21 January 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.

La Fuerza

The result was kept. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was created by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Zhmailik, a user known for creating blatant hoaxes (just by skimming this, ""Pero Me Acuerdo de Ti" (2022) [with Ariana Grande]" is one clear example of this user gaming with Wikipedia to satisfy their hoaxes). The article already is tagged as potentially not-notable. If this is kept, however, it must be verified. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin should also consider to delete the following pages per WP:G5 and/or WP:G3:

Comment: for now I'll say that this EP isn't a hoax [1] and is expected to be released on January 28. Arguably this article might be slightly WP:TOOSOON, but there are definitely sources confirming its imminent release, and by the time this AfD has run its course, it may be notable anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that it is MUCH too soon; perhaps keeping it as a draft UNTIL we have clearer sources definite release dates. Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 05:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The album will be released in January, as confirmed by major publications (Billboard, Portal Pop Line, Daily Mail). It should be kept. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G5, created by a block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i think we can all agree that the ep itself is definitely not a hoax seeing as it's not only confirmed in interviews but also on christina aguilera's website at the time of writing this. however, we don't have a release date announced currently and no other songs beside the singles have been confirmed so i agree that it might be too soon. however, completely deleting doesn't really sound smart because the release seems to be close. i think it should be kept as a draft. i've tried to find as much information about this topic as possible, but seeing as christina announced the ep quietly through interviews instead of big platforms like her social media not many publications spoke about it. there's more articles about her recent instagram post than the upcoming ep. as for the pages for the song santo and lolita, seeing as santo is not released yet, there's not much information that one single song can have prior to its release, whereas lolita is a demo that leaked and it is not at all confirmed that it'll be on the album. in fact it's highly unlikely that it will, because christina confirmed the album will be in spanish and lolita contains english lyrics. even if it does end up on the album, there shouldn't be a page for a song from an album that is not confirmed yet, let alone released. Leaton101 — Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original logic for the AFD is the article was created as a hoax by a problem editor. As noted by editors above, this is incorrect - as there is RS to substantiate that it exists. As noted, its not releases as yet, but will be, so it may as well stay up at this point, rather than be deleted and re-created in a month (or whatver time frame?). Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article is a hoax. I said the article was created by someone who creates hoaxes. If the content is to be kept, the article must be verified to be true. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - really surprised at the rational for deletion from such an experienced editor. The project is legitimate and has received coverage in lots of reliable sources. The quality of the editing is questionable given the main contributor was a sock-puppet but there is ample coverage from reliable and independent sources. The article is already tagged for clean-up etc, which was more than adequate for tidying up the article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's true that the article's creator is suspicious and he/she may have jumped the gun on creating the article too early. But the album is for real and its upcoming release has been verified by Billboard (see the current footnote #15). There is no problem with verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Aaron106 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of the article as the EP has been verified by Billboard, but delete Lolita (Christina Aguilera song) as I do not see a song with this title on the announced track list. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album seems to be real and Santo is available now, it is also suggestable to have all EPs for her 9th album inside one article, but it would be too soon for that. But strong keep for this article at this moment. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an official EP by Christina Aguilera.^[1]^[2]^[3] Bionic (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment Please close this discussion consensus has been reached, that's it a official EP. People are going to the La Fuerza page now on the day of it's release and seeing a banner on top. --Aaron106 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Puyo

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP, with WP:ROUTINE coverage apparently limited to a single passing mention in a Spanish newspaper. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any substantial coverage (or really anything at all apart from database entries). If there are any reliable sources discussing him, they are likely in Spanish though it doesn't appear Spanish Wikipedia has an article on him. My search was hindered by the current Colombian Energy Minister sharing his name. A7V2 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No coverage and no claim to significance. Probably could have been handled with a BLP PROD since it seems very unlikely any sources will be found. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom... appears to fail WP:NMOTORSPORT Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant coverage and unreliable sources Juggyevil (talk) 15:32, 21 January 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!} 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Nagulin

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP, with what little there is just being WP:ROUTINE announcements. Article does nothing to assert notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at the sourcing in the article, it is all either unreliable sources (driverDB), database entries (the Russian site), entry lists, or press release type articles found on the F3 Open website. The Paddock Scout (now Formula Scout) article [2] is completely routine, with most of the article not about Nagulin in spite of the title. Searching online only turned up a few more Formula Scout articles, mostly highly trivial mentions. One with a decent amount is [3] which provides a profile on all of the 2014 GP3 drivers but what is says about Nagulin amounts to effectively that expectations are not high as he hadn't really done much. That is apparently still the case. Note also that while there may be more sources in Russian, he doesn't appear to have an article on Russian Wikipedia. A7V2 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Coverage is not significant and does not justify an article. Coverage stops abruptly in 2014, presumably because he did progress beyond that year's GP3 season. Fails all relevant notability guidelines (GNG, NMOTORSPORT). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:01, 20 January 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 John Keats bibliography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say you love; but with a voice

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

This page has been unsourced since December 2008 and it has not had any notable improvements in the intervening 13 years. I had difficulty trying to finding sources to support to the claim in the article that it is Keats' first "believable love poem". This seems to fails GNG (and I cannot seem to find a relevant SNG to compare against.) TartarTorte 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 13:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel a bit guilty deleting a Keats poem, but if there is nothing here to note its significance... no RS for it, the article is sort of bare. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Keats bibliography in the absence of good sourcing. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:21, 24 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Sadhu

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

Currently only sourced by promotional releases, there's a reason for that, could find zero in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources regarding this person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 18 January 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 and redirect to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family. RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus)

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

This article covers a supposed sister of emperor Severus Alexander. But I've done some digging and it seems to me that the article might be confused.

Dio mentions a daughter of Marcus Julius Gessius Marcianus who was killed in 218, she seems to have been married 1
The Historia Augusta claims that Alexander Severus wanted to marry his sister Theoclia to Gaius Julius Verus Maximus 2

It seems to me that Theoclia (if she was real) and her possible marriage to Verus is thought to have been proposed during Severus reign 3, not when he was a young boy as he would have been in 218 when Marcianus daughter was killed. This work treats the two women as separate people, while this one argues that Theoclia is entirely made up. There is also the fact that Marcianus might have been Severus step-father, not father, so a daughter (if she was indeed married in 218) was probably too old to have been Julia Avita Mamaea's daughter, thus this woman may only have been Severus step-sister. I believe this article should be deleted and the link redirected to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family ★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family, as, even if she existed, she probably isn't notable enough for her own article. If the merge is performed, then it will be important to ensure that the new text at Julia Avita Mamaea#Family is free of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH (I say this even though I'm pretty convinced that the argument about Theoclia's existence that you present here is correct). Furius (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was written by an editor who liked to mass-create articles on non-notable but high-profile people, with only the slightest regard for WP:Verifiability (example). This article simply repeats what the Historia Augusta says without question, while adding some genealogical trivia to flesh it out. The former is unverifiable (unreliable primary source), the latter is already found elsewhere, so there's nothing even to merge (not even worth a redirect). It's all OR, SYNTH, or trivia. That Birley citation mentions in passing an unnamed sister who was supposedly murdered in 218, but you don't need a merger to use that source and mention the fact elsewhere, and there is nothing else of value here. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best should be a curious footnote in the dynasty article of a possible relative mentioned by a not necessarily reliable primary source, for reasons mentioned above. SpartaN (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her mother. For ancient history, primary sources are all we have. Whether we believe the sources is a matter of historical interpretation. Merging leaves a redirect, which means that what little we do know on the lady remains available. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of notability where the infomation can be simply transferred elsewhere, this is a case of the content being unverifiable or put together through original research, which means it's not merge material, as you have been told several times. Avilich (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Anything sourced to the Historia Augusta is likely to be garbage, if there are no other sources covering them then it should be deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect -Agreed, needs more than one source to establish what is going here, for this person who possibly didn't exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:V and WP:OR concerns with merging. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 20 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realme

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

fails WP:NCORP--the references are mere notices, announcements, and promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Might need a stubify. Techradar general description not currently on article is good WP:RS. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since the article is not very good, but company notability is found by simple search attempts. Suspect that many edits have been by non-English speakers, and yes, too much marketing language about "global" and "worldwide" etc. Could be saved. More problematic to me is List of Realme products which is the product guide. However, it has many sources, which together would provide notability in my view. W Nowicki (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Though, draftification is an another option. - Hatchens (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bedford, Tom (2021-03-15). "What are Realme phones? A guide to the company and its smartphones. Get your head around the Chinese tech company". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "Realme originated in China but it’s an up-and-comer in the rest of the world, especially in India and Europe, where its low-cost smartphones are making waves in the budget and mid-range price brackets. The company isn’t averse to premium models though, especially with its Realme Race top-end line slated for an early-2021 release. Below we’ll run you through a brief history of the company as well as the types of products it puts out, and everything else you need to know about the brand."
2. Kronfli, Basil (2020-08-15). "Realme is the most important phone brand you've never heard of". Wired UK. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "As for the other brand on the up, meet Apple’s unlikeliest rival; Realme. ... Realme is a Chinese smartphone manufacturer that’s only a little over two years old. It’s part of BBK Electronics Corporation, which has a complicated history spawning brands like iQOO, and the better known OnePlus, Oppo and Vivo. Realme was created in a similar way to OnePlus, built as a separate brand from BBK and Oppo, but given access to Oppo’s IP, economies of scale for buying components, as well as its extensive factory lines. While OnePlus doesn’t featured in the top ten list of second-quarter shipments at all, and Oppo has taken a hit in terms of devices shipped, Realme appears to have flourished. But why?"
  The article further notes: "“Realme has done well, growing in a relatively small base in key markets such as India, South East Asia and, more recently, with an expansion in Europe,” says Neil Shah, an analyst at Counterpoint. “Its low-cost and aggressive pricing, as well as its e-commerce-based go-to-market strategy has helped Realme drive growth in these markets in particular.”"
3. Burns, Chris (2019-12-18). "You should know about Realme, even if you don't know OPPO". SlashGear. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "Realme makes interesting phones – made to take on the high end of the midrange, or the lower end of the high range – whatever you’d like to call it. The global shipments top spot previously held by LG, then Motorola (then combined with Lenovo), now belongs to Realme. This should be an interesting brand to watch as they grow – and you can bet SlashGear will keep an eye on them as they rocket upward."
4. Muslimin; Yasmir; Jesika, Silvia (2021-12-15). "Pengaruh Harga, Iklan dan Kualitas Produk Terhadap Keputusan Pembelian Smartphone Realme di Kota Muara Bungo" [The Influence of Price, Advertising and Product Quality on the Decision to Purchase a Realme Smartphone in Muara Bungo City]. Jurnal Administrasi Sosial dan Humaniora (in Indonesian). Vol. 4, no. 3. STIA Setih Setio. ISSN 2656-310X. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "Saat ini smartphone realme banyak mengeluarkan produk-produk baru dengan beragam tipe yang ditawarkan kepada konsumen, tetapi tidak sedikit pula yang berspesifikasi rendah serta harganya yang mahal. Hal tersebut bisa bendampak terhadap berkurangnya minat konsumen terhadap smartphone realme. Seharusnya dengan perkembangan produk Smartphone realme yang semakin maju hendaknya haruslah disertakan dengan iklan yang luas mengenai smartphone realme baik secara kualitas, ataupun harga sehingga hal ini dapat membantu konsumen dalam memilih smartphone, pantas atau tidaknya mereka membeli smartphone realme tersebut."
  From Google Translate: "Currently, Realme smartphones issue a lot of new products with various types offered to consumers, but not a few have low specifications and high prices. This can have an impact on reducing consumer interest in realme smartphones. Supposedly with the development of increasingly advanced Realme Smartphone products, it should be included with extensive advertisements about Realme smartphones both in quality and price so that this can help consumers in choosing smartphones, whether or not they are worth buying the Realme smartphone."
5. Cheng, Ting-Fang; Li, Lauly (2020-10-28). "China's Realme sees budget 5G smartphones as key to global growth". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "The emerging new brand, which was founded just two years ago by Li, a former senior executive at smartphone maker Oppo, has already emerged as the world's No. 7 smartphone maker by shipments as of the first half of 2020, research company Counterpoint data showed, surpassing more established players like Sony and LG Electronics. For the Indian smartphone market, one of the biggest in the world, Realme ranked No. 4, with a roughly 12% market share for the first half of this year, according to research agency IDC. Fellow Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi, which is famous for its cost-effective handsets, held the top spot in India, while Vivo ranked second and Samsung was third for the first half of this year, according to IDC."
6. Liao, Rita (2020-11-20). "How China's Realme sold 50 million phones in just over 2 years". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "Within nine quarters, Realme has shipped 50 million handsets around the world, with India as its biggest market, even larger than China. The target this year is to double last year’s target to 50 million units, a goal that’s “nearly complete” according to Xu. It’s now the world’s seventh biggest smartphone brand, trailing only after those that have been around for much longer — Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, Apple, Oppo and Vivo, according to a Q3 report from research firm Canalys."
7. Garg, Ankita (2021-11-29). "Realme set to enter the ultra-premium flagship phone segment: But can it convince users?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "However, for Realme, convincing users that they should shell out more for its device could prove to be a tough challenge to solve, and here’s why we think so. ... First, Realme will have to compete against the likes of Apple and Samsung which currently dominate the premium smartphone market. [More discussion.] ... Second, convincing users to pay the premium is easier said than done. ... Third, I would argue that if it wants to seriously compete in the premium segment, Realme needs to up its camera game. ... Fourth, the software game needs to improve as well, even though Realme has made strides in this area. ..."
8. Singh, Jagmeet (2021-11-15). "Realme Set to Enter High-End Smartphone Market, Plans to Launch Phones Over $800. The first premium phone from the house of Realme could launch early next year". NDTV. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "Since its debut in the smartphone market, Realme has crossed a cumulative shipment of 100 million smartphones. It grew 135 percent year-on-year in the second quarter of 2021, according to analyst firm Counterpoint. The company is also the fourth amongst the top-five smartphone vendors in India. Its market share in India, however, declined five percent YoY in the third quarter, IDC reported."
9. Zhang, Jane (2021-12-02). "Exclusive｜Chinese smartphone maker hopes to quick-charge growth at home after conquering Indian market". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "This is a big step for the Shenzhen-based company, which reached 100 million smartphones sold in June, 37 months after its founding. It reached that threshold faster than rivals Xiaomi, at 41 months, Apple, at 44 months, and Huawei Technologies Co, at 62 months, according to a report from research firm Strategy Analytics."
10. Castillo, Jonathan (2022-01-05). "realme sets its sights high, aims for a global high-end market". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "realme has cracked the world’s top 6 smartphone brands in just three years, the fastest in the industry. It has made a strong mark in global markets with a TOP 5 spot in 21 markets as well as a rising momentum in 5G smartphone dominance. It was the fastest growing 5G Android smartphone brand globally in Q3 2021 with a yearly growth rate of 831%."
11. Shepherd, Christian (2020-08-08). "Chinese smartphone maker Realme takes on emerging Asian markets. Two-year-old brand cracked the world's top 10 handsets with cheap and relatively high-spec devices". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
  The article notes: "Realme’s rise has come in large part from riding on the success of Oppo, which has provided the company with manufacturing and space in its sales stores across India, said Nicole Peng, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Canalys. ... CK Lu, a Taipei-based analyst at Gartner, said Realme was well placed to succeed in its home market because there was a big demand for cheaper models and their main rival Xiaomi has been inconsistent in launching well-priced phones with new features."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Realme to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The promotional material was removed in these two edits. The current version of the article no longer uses promotional wording. Cunard (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you, Cunard, for sharing what you found. This passes WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An overwhelming number of references has been provided by Cunard above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withddraw' On the basis of the sources, I'm withdrawing the AfD request--but I hope now that now Cunard will incorporate them into the article DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 19 January 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 Taken to DRV instead. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook (footballer, born 1885)

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

Previous nomination resulted in a completely non-policy based pile-on and a therefore dubious outcome, so I'm boldly and speedily renominating. Fails WP:GNG (thus rebutting the presumption offered by NSPORT), and whether those sources are online, offline or, like the proverbial teapot, in the middle of interplanetary space, it is the burden of those claiming they exist to present them, not (unlike the usual NFOOTY bandwagon of last time) to merely claim they "probably exist". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The player made numerous appearances as a professional footballer in a professional league. You do realise his career was between 1899 and 1909 so there weren't a great plethora of online source at that time, right? I'm sure we could scour the microfiches at the libraries of Airdrie, Grimsby, Plymouth for newspaper reports but that's not particularly necessary when the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL as was found in the previous discussion. Nominating an article incorrectly once is fine, but it reflects rather poorly on your judgement to nominate it a second time.--Echetus Xe 21:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense devoid of any grounding in reality. In 1899 and 1909, there was also far less coverage of sports than in 2022 (or even 1999), so projecting modern standards back there is the incorrect thing to do here. If sources exist, then yes, the burden is on you to show they exist. Scouring microfiches (which contain what would likely be considered as primary sources) is not required nor desirable for an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - The last AfD was closed today. If there's a problem with the close of the last AfD, go to DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the close, it's the whole AfD which is irreparably tainted by the non-policy based NFOOTY bullet votes. The only solution is to start a new one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck keeping the "non-policy based NFOOTY bullet votes" off this one :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion? It's a guideline, but it's much better established than WP:NSPORT. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with WP:NOTBURO and even more so with "trust your gut". Like it or not, the previous AfD was irretrievably and fundamentally flawed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion is not one of Wikipedia's official policies or guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing at AfD is increasing the bureaucratic load. Bad AfD discussions are a fairly common consequence of the poor ratio of active AfD particpants to AfD workload, but if you believe that instarenoms are going to improve the AfD process, I think you badly misunderstand the nature of the problem. Then again, the context in which you brought about this AfD (your quote, Two wrongs don't make a right. Here, fixed for you. is rather WP:POINTY) suggests you were not thinking about what would happen if your action became a commonplace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure I've ever seen this before: a discussion with a clear consensus to keep is closed as "keep", then someone upset with that goes and nominates it again 80 minutes later! Per prior AfD, I believe this should be kept (speedy?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No valid keep rationale was presented last time. The subject does not meet GNG, and the English football leages were not fully professional back then (as shown by Bring back Daz Sampson). So doesn't even meet NFOOTY, despite the ill-considered bandwagon. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the ping. I agree, obviously. I'd be surprised if there are any sources, on microfiche or otherwise, to confirm the "fully professional" status of the EFL Second Division (featuring Grimsby Town) in 1906. In 1908 First Division "Sunderland had a rate of £1 (2019: £105) to £2 (2019: £219) per week which was based upon recipients having full-time employment elsewhere during the week". Plymouth Argyle were in the Southern League 1908–09 so those alleged appearances would not count towards WP:NFOOTBALL in any case. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such discussions would surely be better at WT:FPL rather than the AfD for an individual footballer who actually passes NFOOTBALL quite comfortably. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:NSPORT, all athletes have to pass GNG regardless of passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Not that it matters as he fails that too as the English football leages were not fully professional when he played. Alvaldi (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The OP is unhappy with the result of an AfD that just closed with a clear consensus. This nomination is disruptive and WP:POINTY. Try WP:DRV or wait at least a few months before renominating. Mlb96 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is disruptive is when people don't wish to engage with the issue at hand and instead do special pleading. I specifically chose to start a new AfD given the previous one was so defective and that between going to DRV and starting a new one, this would likely take less time and be less of a bureaucratic time-waste, i.e. WP:NOTBURO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then to address your argument on the merits: Keep because he satisfies NSPORTS and your interpretation of NSPORTS would relegate it to about as useful as a humor page. He played professional soccer for 10 years, there is absolutely no way that sources don't exist. And if you insist that NSPORTS truly accomplishes nothing and is a complete waste of bytes, then consider this !vote to be based on WP:IAR. Mlb96 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He played football one century ago in what could maybe be but probably isn't a truly fully professional league. If there is "absolutely no way that sources don't exist", then it should be absolutely trivial to find them. Having an article based on poor sources and be nothing more than a database entry does not improve the encyclopedia, so while I appreciate the tacit acknowledgement that this is special pleading, it does not solve the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close This is just disruptive straight after admin Fenix down closed who was following standard procedure. You didn't even go to his talk page, saying you were going to renominate straight after which I would consider poor judgement. There are a number of red flags done with this re-nomination if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and trout the nominator. Take to WP:DRV if you do not like the outcome of the previous discussion. I would close this myself but as I !voted in the last AFD I am involved. NB if this is not withdrawn or closed in the next few hours I will be flagging at ANI @RandomCanadian:. Giant Snowman 11:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) was closed on 18 January 20:03, this nomination was made at 21:24 the same day. This is a professional footballer from an era in which online sources are scant, and his name is also very common making searching difficult.--Mvqr (talk) 14:02, 19 January 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. The keep argument is that while significant de-crufting may be needed, there are sufficient sources about this fictional universe to allow for an article about it rather than just a section within an article about the series. Sources added to the article during the discussion period indicate that this argument is plausible, and it is the view of a strong majority of the participants. RL0919 (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uplift Universe

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

The fictional world of a book series. Per WP:NOTPLOT, part of the policy WP:NOT, articles must not be "summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (...) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." This article fails this policy because it consists only of plot summary. Moreover, it fails WP:GNG, because if there's anything notable here, it's the books (which already have articles), and not their fictional universe. The article cites no sources that would suggest any notability for these fictional species, etc. Sandstein 21:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, assuming the RPG, themes etc are sourcable. If not a merge to Brin or to Uplift (science fiction) might be applicable. Not seeing WP:NOTPLOT as applicable, though some plotty cruft could probably be trimmed. Artw (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar quickly finds [4], [5], [6], as well as a bunch of Brin's own scholarly writings. There are a number of mentions in various Sci Fi encyclopedias as well under this name. Google News finds [7] as well. With notability established, the lack of these sources in the article can be addressed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for same reasons.DavidHobby (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent these sources confer notability, they do so for the book series, not for the fictional universe inside the book series. And irrespective of notability, failing WP:NOT is an independent reason for deletion. I'd be happy if somebody were to use these sources to write a competent article about the book series, including its themes, but what we have here is not an encyclopedia article, but fancruft better suited to fan wikis. WP:TNT applies. Sandstein 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with User:Sandstein; I think the book series may be notable but the current article is 99% plot summary fancruft, and a bit about the publication history. A bit could be rescued, but overall, WP:TNT seems sadly applicable. Btw, Sandstein, perhaps you could consider commenting in some ongoing IMHO identical discussions I recently started? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heechee and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanth... I think they all concern articles that share the same problems. Also, uplift (science fiction) looks ripe for an AfD of its own, sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, thanks, but I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment in AfDs to which I have been directed in the expectation that I would express a certain opinion (WP:CANVASS). Sandstein 13:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens Can you provide a working link for the pdf at 3? It seems to have been temporary and already broken. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still works for me. The paper is "Design and Architecture: Third Generation Conservation, Post-Immersion and Beyond" by Jon Coe from "FUTURE OF ZOOS SYMPOSIUM, 10-11 February 2012, Canisius College, Buffalo, NY". The relevant quotes from it include: "Another science fiction concept, explored in David Brin’s “Uplift” book series involves human genetic engineering of other species to optimise their ability to prosper along with humans. Such developments could lead to another version of the “unzoo” (safe wildlife?) as will as the third generation conservation approach which follows." and concludes with "Exotic animal collections will greatly decline, replaced by virtual safari experiences and perhaps chimerical hybrid species. Eventually even uplifted families of bonobos or dolphins may become your friends and neighbors." Of note, the citation is not to any individual of Brin's books, but to "Brin, D., 1980, Uplift Universe Series, Bantam Books inc. NY" which is I presume why the Google Scholar search tagged it. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect per WP:TNT and arguments above. Most of the article is unreferenced fancruft, what little remains could be used to expand this, but nobody has volunteered and as such a redirect and perhaps a slight merge to David_Brin#The_Uplift_stories could be considered as well. I'll also note that I loved the series when I was younger, and I'll add this to my 'to research and rewrite' list in the future, but I won't bother rewriting this fancruft. Any cleanup needs to start with removal of 99% of content, hence my preference for soft deletion via redirecting for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge .0001% to David_Brin#The_Uplift_stories. There is some non-universe sourcing, but nothing to indicate it warrants a standalone article or is independently notable. Could easily be covered within his article as the vast majority of the existing material is unsuitable and should be removed. Star Mississippi 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I struck my vote. There have been a lot of changes since I made it and without time to assess them, I no longer feel comfortable taking a position. So simply neutral Star Mississippi 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome here, the notability of the entire series is beyond a doubt, having won Hugo and Nebula awards multiple times. The Universe the series is based in is well-developed, and a lot of what is in there could at least be verified. I have a copy of Contacting Aliens, which gives a decent dive into the history, the languages, the purposes of the great institutes, and short descriptions for far more species than are currently listed. (I also just finally found the GURPS maual at a decent price and have ordered it) I feel like the fictional universe is notable as the core element of six big fat novels and four other ancillary publications, but of course my feelings as a huge fan of the series don't count without sources to back them up. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ok, I've just done some research and found *A LOT* of referencing to the uplift universe and its various concepts in Google Scholar, and I have have added in an extra 6 references (and there is more than that). I will note here that Brin coined the term uplift, and his work (and the term "uplift") is now referenced by both science writers, animal rights people, and philsophers.The RS I've added is mainly just GS, there would be more in Ebsco, Proquest and Gale if anyone else wants to look there and add them in. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources show that there's a basis for an article about the book series and its themes. But adding them to the article does not change that the article is still entirely plot summary as prohibited by WP:NOT. An actual encyclopedia article would address how the fictional concept of uplift relates to the real world (in terms of technology, cultural influence, reception by critics and scientists, etc.), not just regurgitate what's in the books. Sandstein 07:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding text and information about the themes, with the relevant supporting RS which validates the article. If there is too much fancruft vs valid discussion of the themes of the book by sources (which I agree there probably is) the offending fancruft stuff can be taken out. But certainly, if you are suggesting it, that's not a basis for deleting the whole article which is otherwise referenced and valid. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excess plot is fixable by normal editing, and thus not a reason for deletion. As an administrator, Sandstein you should know this and do better, rather that continue making nominations which undermine editor confidence in your ability to appropriately apply deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the entire article is plot summary, the fix is deleting the article, There is no „normal editing“ that can remedy this problem. Sandstein 08:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will point that that the now-closed discussions I linked above ended up in keep, suggesting the (temporary?) consensus is against you (and me). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except Sandstein - as per Jclemens's comments, and my additions, and others, the entire article is not plot summary, so there are no grounds for TNT here. I don't really understand why you keep pushing for that. It would be great if you could please tag the sections you see as problematical, and they can be dealt with, and we can all work together to improve the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian Everything outside 'major themes' needs a ~90% reduction in fancruft density. If you think you can rescue this, godspeed; I'd prefer to start from scratch, although softdeletion can be totally fine without the need for AfD (it just makes DYKing before GA stage more difficult, but that's a minor concern). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein you keep saying that, but it simply not true in any way; Deathlibrarian's additions here prove you wrong: Even if they're not sufficient, they demonstrate that it's entirely possible to go from 100% PLOT to something else without using admin tools. Please explain what you really meant, retract that ridiculous statement, or exit deletion processes until you become adequately familiar with Wikipedia policies. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After the improvements by Deathlibrarian, the article is now 90% plot instead of 100% plot, which I guess is progress, but overall the article still looks at the topic from an in-universe point of view instead of from an out-of-universe point of view, like a proper article should (WP:WAF). If one looks at the headings - 1 Setting (1.1Technology 1.2Social behavior 1.3Languages 1.4Planets), 2Alien species and humans (2.1EarthClan 2.1.1Humans 2.1.2Neo-Chimpanzees 2.1.3Neo-Dolphins 2.1.4Neo-Gorillas 2.1.5Kiqui 2.2Other species 2.2.1The Glaver 2.2.2The Jophur) 3Major themes, 4Plot Outline - there is only one section with an out-of-universe point of view (the 10% usable content I mentioned): the "Major themes" section. That section could become the core of a proper article about the book series, but the rest still needs to be discarded or moved to a fan wiki. Sandstein 07:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet... deletion of plot material and addition of sourced commentary continues, all without admin tools. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEYMAN. I understand the nomination, based on this version, and anything beyond the briefest summaries sourced just to the books should be removed, but there's a seed of material that can be retained now, so the rest can be fixed by editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I've added a bit more content to the themes section, with some extra analysis of his work, and a few more references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the long lists of things here (both the list of languages and the list of planets). Judging from the discussions here, these things seemed to bother people the most, and do appear to be fannish. They were just long lists, and were not referenced. I replaced the languages list with a section on language, with references discussing it. Added another 5 references, trying to reduce the amount of unreferenced text in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of secondary sources out there, a few of which have been added recently by Deathlibrarian. Since these were published pre-internet I'm sure there are lots more sources that never made it online too. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm ow reasonably convinced this is a workable article. It has some real issues as identified by the nominator but I feel these can be overcome by editing as opposed to deletion. I also feel that the distinction between calling it "Uplift Universe" as opposed to "Uplift Series" is largely academic and can be discussed on the talk page as the article progresses. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 26 January 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 deleted by Justlettersandnumbers per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Blanco

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite never playing in WP:FPL, the subject passes GNG as there are multiple SIGCOV from secondary sources. Just search for the name on Google. Notadogbutafish (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Java Hurricane 06:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with Notadogbutafish. There is enormous media coverage about him. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To show notability, you need in-depth coverage from at least 3 independent reliable sources. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG and we can also consider WP:VERIFY which is also an important concept. PreppyElephant (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been presented to support the assertion that this meets GNG. The first three sources in the article are databases (not SIGCOV), and judging from what can be gleaned from the rest of the article's content, they don't appear to be more than routine, run-of-the-mill sports coverage. Playing for a reserve team isn't a particularly good reason to ignore this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such per WP:G5. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Notadogbutafish. Passes WP:GNG, Many sources available. VincentGod11 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it meets GNG, then please provide WP:THREE sources to support this. Unsupported assertions are entirely unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(following part of discussion removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 January 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. Deleted under WP:G11 by User:Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Imran Mahin

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. No reliable sources cited, only press releases which are clearly paid for by the subject. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment - I was being quite generous at times here but it still fails WP:GNG in my view Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12822277/		See WP:IMDB	Brief bio on user-generated website	✘ No
https://www.jagonews24.com/jago-jobs/article/704208		As per the footnote, this is written by a uni student		✘ No
https://english.newstracklive.com/news/meet-with-a-famous-musician-actor-and-entrepreneur-al-imran-mahin-sc39-nu293-ta293-1175983-1.html	Largely copied and pasted from his IMDb page	The fact that this is a copyvio from a user-generated source makes me concerned that this is not professional journalism		✘ No
https://bollywoodmascot.com/bollywood-news/nia-sharma-got-trolled-by-sharing-the-pole-dance-video-on-her-instagram/		No author, no professional journalist involved	Pure spam with no actual substance, just pure puff piece	✘ No
https://samakal-com.translate.goog/entertainment/article/211079770/-ডিজিটাল-উদ্যোক্তা-মাহিনের-নতুন-গান?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc			Routine song announcement	✘ No
https://www.risingbd.com/english/campus/news/82715		I think Risingbd.com is generally considered okay	~ Contains some claims to notability such as awards and some coverage of his life. Disappointed to see a lot of promotional content such as "He knows how to control and become a master in a potential field- a trait that is a huge reason behind his current success." and "With unwavering dedication, perseverance, and hard work, Al Imran has been able to establish a successful organization at a very young age." which are disappointing to see from a supposedly reputable news source	? Unknown
https://www.dhakatimes24.com/2021/11/16/238744		Generic reporter rather than a named journalist	~ Not much independent content as it's largely based off a supposed interview with the subject, like every other source cited here.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 18 January 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Armitage

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

"Welfare worker and community leader" fails WP:GNG. Also not notable for being related to William Downie Stewart Sr. KidAd • SPEAK 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO as she is in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography which qualifies her under The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. TartarTorte 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tartartorte. Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. She has entries in at least two biographical dictionaries. pburka (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tartartorte Mujinga (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the PROD placed by the nominator with the edit summary "has bio in DNZB and that alone establishes notability" and I'm not entirely sure what is so hard to understand about that. Schwede 66 08:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Should never have been nominated for deletion in the first place. DrThneed (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:ANYBIO Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:33, 21 January 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!} 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple, Ujjain

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

Lack of detailed coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NBUILDING. Sources are travel sites or promotional press statements in newspaper. Venkat TL (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yep - as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:34, 21 January 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!} 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vicious

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

Repeatedly recreated. Escapes WP:A7 because of "He gained popularity through the social media website MySpace". No such vocalist/guitarist has ever performed for From First to Last or Matchbook Romance as far as I can tell. Several sources cited but none of them mention a 'Chris Vicious'.

No hits here or here. Someone with better access to sources relating to this genre of music may have better luck but, for now, my opinion is that this should be deleted. Don't redirect to either band until the claim that he performed with them can be verified by a reliable source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominatoin. It fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 14:00, 24 January 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, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal lake

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

There seems to be no coherent concept of a 'fractal lake' in the literature. As documented on the talk page, there have been several attempts to source the term to a well-defined concept. I would be open to either deletion or redirection to Fractal. Felix QW (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I deprodded this, thus causing this AFD, but I'm now convinced there is no viable article and the definition offered is both original research and not meaningful. There are instances of the term lake being used descriptively of certain fractal features, but many other geographic terms are used in the same way, such as bay, island, and thread to describe the shape of parts of fractals. None of these have a formal definition. They are just handy analogies. SpinningSpark 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be a widely used term. PianoDan (talk) 00:16, 19 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Chisholm

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

Non-notable person, sourcing is atrocious, and the article is written like a resume. I'm surprised this hasn't been deleted earlier. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Municipal engineer with too few citations to support academic notability and nothing to support GNG. Likely an autobiography. JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Legacy page that wouldn't get this far if created today. Standards have changed. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 13:50, 24 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marios Georgiou (footballer)

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

He played one game of professional football then spent the rest of his career as a semi-pro/amateur. AEK Larnaca were previously playing in the 2009–10 Cypriot Second Division so his alleged 18 appearances for them, even if correct, are not guaranteed to be top tier appearances. His two cup games for ASIL Lysi took place while they were playing in the 2015–16 Cypriot Second Division and the 2016–17 Cypriot Second Division so no claim to notability can be made from them.

Searches in Google News and DDG yielded plenty of in-depth coverage of Marios Georgiou (gymnast) but nothing about this semi-pro footballer. WP:GNG not demonstrated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing one game as a pro isn't enough to justify an article about the person if they fail WP:GNG in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. The results for the gymnast were quite abundant which made sorting through results a much longer process, but ultimately I also couldn't find WP:SIGCOV for the subject. Per consensus at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, this should result in delete. GauchoDude (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no evidence of any 'long standing consensus'. Clearly passes WP:GNG by a long shot. 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:E473:B71D:61AB:8F29 (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @2A00:23C7:E915:1201:E473:B71D:61AB:8F29: The long standing consensus has been noted in multiple AfD's and has been summarized at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES per my note above. As others haven't had any luck with WP:GNG, I'm open to seeing where you've found your sources that led you to that conclusion. GauchoDude (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus has been established at many AfDs going as far back as the many linked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitar Ivanov (footballer, born 1991) by GiantSnowman. More recent examples include Georgiou's compatriots Constantinos Louvaris, Zannetos Mytidis and Christos Charalambous. As GauchoDude says, if this passes GNG by a long shot, it shouldn't be hard to present some sort of coverage. Stating that something meets GNG but not providing supporting evidence is not that helpful in a deletion discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 22 January 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 23:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women Fetching Water from the Nile

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

Non notable short film. Nothing found in a BEFORE to establish notability. Just because something is from the earliest days of film does not mean it is inherently notable, DonaldD23 talk to me 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:33, 21 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bkay Photos

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

Has some claims to notability, but when one takes a closer look, this photographer seems to lack notability, with sources which seem to be produced by the photographer and not by actual journalists (e.g. this one and this one), which explains why they are largely absent from net results[8] and completely absent from Google News[9]. Fram (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This photographer is notable in Koforidua, Ghana and this article should be kept and improved -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you know this and interesting information like "He held the first ever photography exhibition in the Eastern Region of Ghana in May 2021, in koforidua- which attracted thousands of people in and around the globe." from where exactly? It is sourced to their own website, and to this site, with contents like "We are an upscale photography business" and "Our vision is to be" (oops, not an independent review but a text provided by Bkay), and which doesn't even contain the claims about that exhibition that you put into that article. Do you have, by any chance, some WP:COI with this subject? Fram (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, I'm just trying to create Ghanaian related contents here. Nevertheless I agree on this -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you agree on here. That it should be deleted? That the sourcing sucks? That the File:Image of Bkay.jpg you uploaded as your own work either isn't your own work and is thus a copyright violation (and was already used here before you uploaded it), or seems to indicate a clear WP:COI despite your denial? Fram (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the basis that the article should be deleted but I want to emphasize that I have no WP:COI with the subject. You've pointed out the notability state of the article and it doesn't meet the standard and should be deleted. I agree on this so I think we should be done here. Thank you -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And do you actually own the copyright to that image, or did you claim copyright without actually having that right? Fram (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is WP:PROMO and the sources are not reliable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. The sources in the article appear to be promotional. Pikavoom ^Talk 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguously promotional. Note that the same text appears in https://scoutafrica.net/bkay-photos/, https://ghadmissionforms.com/bkay-photos/,

https://winegreynews.com/bkay-photos-best-photographer-in-koforidua-the-lenses-the-creativity/ So much for independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty clearly promotional and the sourcing appears to be PR Churnalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, and is pretty clearly UPE editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 25 January 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 Six Flags Magic Mountain. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Blaster (Six Flags Magic Mountain)

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

A web search only gives databases like the one used as the article's only source, primary sources, and fandom wikis. No signs of notability. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Six Flags Magic Mountain – Some editors in the past used to weigh in on these discussions claiming that all coaster installations are inherently notable, but I'm from a different camp. Coasters like this one will never have any coverage in reliable sources other than the day they were added to (or removed from) the park, barring any major incidents during its time in operation. Coverage of these insignficant rides should be relegated solely to the article of the amusement park where they reside. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge due to lack of significant coverage of this specific attraction as opposed to the park as a whole. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is appropriate for the amusement park it is covered by. As per its minimum reliable source coverage. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No RS to substantiate as an independent article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:38, 21 January 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!} 21:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Tafuri

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

So in my searching I was able to find this source [10] which mentioned Tafuri. It is a 5 line mention on p. 140 or a book. It is better than some other entries in the book which give no information, but I do not think on its own it is enough. Everything else I found was either IMDb level sourcing or blog posts, or a few name drops such as this [11] which is a dropping of the name saying nothing substantial about the person. I just do not see this level of sourcing adding up to passing GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect. I couldn't find anything better, few mentions in passing in lists of animators and such. I am afraid he fails GNG requiremen tof multiple sources meeting WP:SIGCOV (at best we have the one short entry you found). That said I'd prefer soft deletion here by redirecting him, maybe one day someone will find more sources or they'll appear, and then it could be restored. Not sure where to redirect his entry, List_of_animators#T seems to contain only blue links. He is mentioned in credits of Little Lulu and in the text of Fritz the Cat (film); maybe the latter would be best, give it's a mention in prose? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 19 January 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 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Grand Atlantic City

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

Previous DR only focused on WP:CRYSTAL. Now with 10 years hindsight, we can safely say that this corporate pipe dream has zero lasting legacy or impact. The references are routine reporting, failing WP:NOTNEWS#2. I can't see how reporting on corporate expansion plans is encyclopedic... At best, it could briefly be mentioned in the parent article (MGM Resorts). P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree as it never materialized. Chelokabob (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. A project from 2007 that has not even had a groundbreaking by 2022 and was officially cancelled in 2010 with no real lasting impact is not notable. It could maybe also be mentioned in one sentence at Borgata as MGM owns the Borgata and it was supposed to be right next to it, but only if there's a way to naturally fit it in. TartarTorte 13:37, 21 January 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 14:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Ram Moodh

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

Not a notable politician. Subject's main claim to prominence is as a state representative, that in itself doesn't warrant an article. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. No major work done or elections won. Venkat TL (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for notifying the issues, I have made some changes in it and add some sources to it. Now working on it to make it more suitable to wiki. User:mukesh.kfc (User talk:Mukesh.kfc) 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Mukesh.kfc (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukesh.kfc what is your relation with Bala Ram Moodh? Venkat TL (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No relation User:mukesh.kfc Mukesh.kfc (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of meeting NPOL or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable local party official. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May be Local polticians are notable as mentioned in wp: politician

Mukesh.kfc (talk) 12:14, 25 January 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 13:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Act Noir

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

Non-notable. Article evidently created by a band member, based on account name. Besides one interview in an Italian publication currently cited in the article, there does not seem to be any substantive coverage of the band or its members in independent, reliable sources. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS for this band. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lacks reliable media coverage. I searched on Google for reference. Couldn't find any and the website URL of this band is dead too. Tried way back machine and got this https://web.archive.org/web/20110202132214/http://www.actnoir.com/. Mommmyy (talk) 15:17, 21 January 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 Tema. ✗plicit 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tema Development Corporation

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

city agency, not independently notable DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Tema. While the article is short and all sources don't have in-depth coverage, it does indicate that the corporation has some history that has attracted interest from a housing development model. There are also newer sources including these mentioning its diminished role in Tema and negative perceptions of the company, its liquidity and appeal to become a Limited Liability Corporation to expand its operations, its dispute with a church, protests against its proposed land sale, its demolition of a pastor's home, its current projects, and conflict between it and the Tema Metropolitan Assembly. —Ost (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a merge would be satisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tema as WP:ATD, on its own this topic fails our notability guideline NCORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 12:16, January 24, 2022 (UTC)
Merge to Tema. No evidence that this is notable separately from the parent city government. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 24 January 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 13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Heart Valve Disease Awareness Day

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

non notable celebration -- a promotional effort and the references are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems overly-promotional. I mean we have a National Grilled Cheese day at one point, sure this is a medical condition but I haven't heard of this day until just now. I don't think it's gained enough traction in the public's eye to be notable at this point. The sources while being from notable organizations, are just confirming it exists. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 19 January 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 12:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesservice Telekommunikation

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

Declined A7 speedy - brought to AfD instead as we are effectively dealing with an article about something that may or may not even exist. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not certain this even existed, beyond having a phone number and e-mail listed in the federal database with meaningless boilerplate language saying that they provide services. The whole article is basically about a medium blog post by Lilith Wittmann who found this unknown organization listed in the database, and a bit of coverage on the deletion discussion on the German Wikipedia and some media coverage on questions to the government on whether this organization exists or existed. The questions were answered by stating this organization was never funded and by removing it from the data base. It is possible this is a front name used by some employees of a security service under the ministry of interior, like Bundesstelle für Fernmeldestatistik was used until 2014, but this is not certain. This fails the 10 year test, and sources that exist lack any depth on the organization itself, they just cover Wittmann's queries and lack of any meaningful response or information on this possible organization. Pikavoom ^Talk 11:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So hang on now. We have this obscure blogger (with all of 163 followers before this flap) alleging that there is this Sooper Sekrit agency doing Sooper Sekrit things, where she has no evidence of its activities -- never mind none of its existence -- save for her own speculation. (Never mind that her blogpost ends with her talking about this nifty new tool she's developing to track such agencies down ... stay tuned!). We have a single magazine article about her finding nothing, and the magazine likewise finding nothing. Whoa. Stop the presses. Everything else are primary sources. This is an embarrassing enough failure of the GNG without it being the creation of an editor with exactly 36 mainspace edits (most of which are on a cryptocurrency article), who is surprisingly ready to call "troll" on anyone who opposes it [12].
Whether there's anything to be found or not I leave to that blogger, who plainly has a lot of time on her hands. That her quixotic crusade merits its own Wikipedia article, ummmm ... no. This is one of the very rare WP:V fails, but the GNG requires that the subject of an article receives "significant coverage." None of these sources provide any coverage to the subject at all. Ravenswing 13:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - I couldn't find anything else, so fails WP:V per Ravenswing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty fascinating stuff, either a hoax by the German federal government or a secret service thing. The Stern article is a RS about the affair, but just one. Draftify to see if this gets picked up by more media or not. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose draftication. The whole premise of an article is that it is about the subject. In this case, there's quite literally nothing known. The article here isn't about "Bundesservice Telekommunikation," it's a coatrack created by a now-indeffed SPA about Wittmann's frankly quixotic fishing expedition. Were Wittman remotely notable in her own right, there'd be a place for the information in an article about her, but she's not, and there isn't. Ravenswing 14:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm supporting to move to draft. We simply do not know whether this is a real thing, a hoax, or something secret, so we don't have verifiable information other than "something is wrong" so far. As a news story it is not notable yet, but could become notable soon if a handful of investigative journalists start working on it and discover in what sense this exists or not. The story seems more likely to be notable than Wittmann herself. If it turns out there is nothing more to say than what we have now, then this can die quietly in draft space. I do not understand why you claim the original author is a SPA. Their personal attacks do not look good, but I don't think an indef was necessary. It is interesting that this was asked about by Tilo Jung of Jung & Naiv [de] in the Bundespressekonferenz; you removed a mention of this apparently because it is hosted on YouTube. (It seems to be one of the uses allowed by WP:RSPYT). Just because the original author can't play nicely with others doesn't mean their content contributions have to be faulty. —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, even if such further coverage will emerge it more likely to be relevant to whichever German government agency Bundesservice Telekommunikation was a front for. This article is either a bizarre database error, or a front name for some other organization or department. Pikavoom ^Talk 15:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, I claim the original author was a SPA because this is one of the two things the SPA did on Wikipedia; whether you yourself feel an indef was necessary isn't relevant. Should a genuine news story arise -- as opposed to Wittman's claims that Something! Must! Exist! -- then an article can be created, but right now this is something a blogger dreamed up one day. This blows holes through WP:V AND WP:OR AND WP:WEBHOST, and draftifying it would throw WP:CRYSTAL into the mix as well, speculating absent a lick of evidence that Something! Might! Exist! Wittman can try to bolster her somewhat threadbare follower count any way that seems to her good; we don't need to be a coatrack for her efforts. Ravenswing 17:52, 20 January 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. Most participants believe this is a reasonable WP:SPLITLIST from Zig & Sharko given the size of the list. RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zig & Sharko episodes

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ––FormalDude talk 05:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 05:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spinoff articles for listing the episodes of a notable show, are quite common and acceptable on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 06:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was unilaterally split from the main article due to its length, and lists of episodes are usually encyclopedic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:16, 11 January 2022 (CST)
Delete I'm finding it extremely hard to see how this doesn't fail the notability guidelines for lists. Maybe WP:OTHERLISTSLIKEITEXIST or whatever, but in this case none of the episodes are blue linked or referenced to reliable sources and there's zero evidence that any of them ever will be. Nor is there evidence that reliable in-depth sources discuss them as a group or set. Otherwise, someone should provide some references to prove it, and not just reviews of the seasons or the show in general. Otherwise we could justify creating lists of episodes for every random small town public access show out there. Which, as far as I'm aware, we can't justify or do. Even in cases where the show might otherwise be notable. At least for something like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood the episode lists are per season and they include small summaries of each episode. Maybe something like that would work here, but having an indiscriminate list of 160 episodes without any context, plot summaries, references, blue links, or anything else that would actually serve an encyclopedic purpose just goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Wikipedia not being a database of indiscriminate facts. More so because the Zig & Sharko is questionably notable and it's article is horribly referenced. At least create a list notable episodes in Zig & Sharko that can add to it's notability and then at some point re-create it when there's a justification to. Otherwise people are really putting the cart before the horse here. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove the unsourced episode plots and American premiere dates (article doesn't even mention said American network it was on, so this could be the date some expatriate kid got a DVD from HMV or something). Common for a series like this to have a list-of separately to keep the main article light. Nate • (chatter) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what part of the notability guidelines for list articles? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge back to Zig & Sharko, where this was split from (diff). The Zig & Sharko article is presently at 12kb, so the list would still fit (WP:SIZERULE), particularly if it is pruned as per the suggestion of Mrschimpf above. That said, some sources verifying the content would be helpful; the list article presently has no sources (perm link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per WP:SIZERULE at 50 episodes a season, and that's even without detailed descriptions of each ep, it clearly needs to be split off its own page. Division should take place at 60 kB, and this article alone is 89k Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:16, 21 January 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 Earl of Caledon. The person is a dead British nobleman who's covered in Who's Who, but apparently not (substantially) in other sources. As to his notability, opinions are divided, which means that strength of argument is the deciding factor.

The "keep" argument is that nobles of this rank are inherently notable, and that it is useful to cover all nobles of this rank. But this argument has no basis in policies or inclusion guidelines, which do not address nobility. WP:MONARCH, which summarizes deletion outcomes, instead suggests that the inclusion of nobles is normally discussed on a case-by-case basis based on WP:GNG. The "keep" argument is therefore rather weak.

The "delete" argument is, first, lack of notability-establishing coverage. In this regard, there is a dispute (which I cannot decide here) about the reliability of Who's Who. But even if we assume it to be a reliable source providing substantial coverage (which was not discussed here), it would be only one source, not the multiple ones required by GNG, and nobody argues that there are other relevant sources. The GNG argument for deletion is therefore rather strong.

Also strong is the other argument for deletion, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. That policy says that articles should not be "genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." But the contents of the article are almost entirely genealogical (married, had children, etc.) Nobody in this AfD argues that there are things of substance to be written about this man that are not genealogical.

Based on the strength of the arguments presented, we therefore have rough consensus for not keeping the article. Redirection to the title, where there is a list of titleholders, is an appropriate alternative to deletion. Content can be merged from history as desired and to the extent supported by editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Alexander, 6th Earl of Caledon

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

The subject of this article does not conform to Wikipedia notability standards. The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, many of whom appear un-notable too. Emmentalist (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Always a bit unsure about these peerage articles. Basically it's a rich guy with a title they inherit, nothing notable beyond that. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. This fellow seems non-notable, the article just confirms he existed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, basically. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. In that case per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan: There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge content with Earl of Caledon where Denis Alexander is already mentioned. There exists a Wikipedia page for each title; this is consistent with the principle that titles are a category or class which is of itself notable. It is not consistent or logical to have a separate Wikipedia article about an individual who has a title and is otherwise not notable since the title, and the reference to each person who has held it, is already the subject of an extant article. Separate articles should only apply where the individual, such as the First Duke of Wellington, is notable for reasons other than the title. This principle should be applied in all other cases where the holder of a title is otherwise not notable. BrightonDave (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords. This doesn't apply to Caledon, however, as he was an Irish peer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Hawkeye7. There's plenty of coverage of him, even if not especially comprehensive. Entry in Who's Who. Enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Hawkeye7's point seems to have been fully addressed by @BrightonDave. Denis Alexander, The 6th Earl of Caledon, is included in the Earl of Caledon page. In addition, the argument that an individual is notable because they are in the UK's Who's Who is essentially circular because the Who's Who has an editorial policy of including all title holders. Wikipedia must set its own rules. I completely respect arguments to the contrary, and those who are taking the time to make them, but to me it seems perverse for each Earl mentioned at the Earl of Caledon page, and who can have as much biographical material there as anyone wishes consistent with Wikipedia policies, should also have a separate article regardless of whether or not they are notable (the Who's Who issue notwithstanding). I agree that if this is actioned it will require the articles of many unknown aristocrats (including, it seems, most of the Earls of Caledon) to have their second, or individual, articles merged with the article for the relevant title. The implications of our decision are therefore fairly considerable. I'm going to ask at TeaHouse if anyone there fancies chipping in. We seem quite evenly balanced at the moment, and in view of the consequences it might be good to have an admin give a point of view? Best regards to all, Emmentalist (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of the "!vote" immediately above is the nominator. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, that's quite right @hoary Perhaps I confused things there. Apols if so, and thanks. Emmentalist (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Not all the Earls of Caledon are lesser light; Du Pre Alexander, 2nd Earl of Caledon was an important figure, with a biography in the ODNB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks, @Hawkeye7, I agree that the 2nd Earl is notable in his own right and his own article is quite right on that basis.Emmentalist (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was an earl, so I imagine that he would have been eligible to participate in the House of Lords; but many Lords didn't and there's no hint in the article that he did. He would have had the right to wear unusual headgear. And he procreated. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel, but there's no indication of that there's anything notable about what he did on his way to this rank. So he seems utterly un-notable (in the normal sense of the word). The nomination: "The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, all of whom appear un-notable too." As the article is ostensibly about him, I don't see why it would make any difference if his relatives were notable. Of course what matters is Wikipedia-notability; and plenty of non-notable people (reality TV show participants, etc) are Wikipedia-notable because there's so much talk about them in "reliable sources". But for this fellow, the references all seem very trivial. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, Earl of Caledon is in the Peerage of Ireland, which did not confer an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I missed that. Written above together with it: "most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords". In WP:POLITICIAN, I read that article-eligibility "also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them"; I'm not sure that this also applies to people eligible for political office but who rarely if ever made use of that eligibility. But this is beside the point here, as the man's peerage was Irish. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Customarily for many years now we have included all British/Irish peers, and that weight of custom would probably need a properly advertised RfC to overturn it. The Who's Who entry appears sufficient for verification, I think the Gazette would cover his accession (not sure for Irish peers, tbh) and it would be extremely unlikely were his life not to be covered by local newspapers, at the very least. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Some dude who inherited land and a title, married a game show panelist, ostensibly did nothing notable in his role as an officer, and that's basically it. This article may as well belong in a genealogy database. The entry in Who Was Who should mean next to nothing; it's a publication that does so little research on its own tens of thousands of subjects that it compiles its entries by sending questionnaires to the people it writes about and letting them fill it out of their own accord with seemingly little or no fact-checking. While I don't have access to Montgomery-Massingberd & Skyes (1999), it's hard to imagine this subject received more than a couple-sentence blurb even in such a highly specific publication. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a super discussion and thanks so much to everyone who has participated so far. Perhaps a clarifying point here? It is agreed that the UK aristocracy is notable and that each title qualifies for a Wikipedia article, including biographical detail on each historical title holder. It's also easy to understand why many people could find such articles interesting and useful. The question at hand is whether those otherwise un-notable figures mentioned there should also have a second article dedicated to them. Again, it is easy to understand why, say, the First Duke of Wellington (i.e. the famous one) or perhaps, as mentioned by @espressoaddict the Second Earl of Caledon, might have such a huge biographical entry that it would distort the page for the title and a second article would be appropriate. But that would seem (imho) to rest on normal standards of notability other than simply being included in the article about the title.Emmentalist (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. (As noted, and while "peerage titles" are often considered notable, every single holder of such title is not automatically considered notable.) There is nothing to indicate that ANYBIO, SIGCOV, or related guidelines are met here. (As noted, other than being the holder of a title [and being listed in a "Whos Who" because of that], there is nothing else here [in the text or the refs] to establish independent notability.) Inheriting land, being in the military and having own families/chlidren? How does this confer notability? Guliolopez (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a regular Wikipedia editor but I do enjoy reading about history and nobility on Wikipedia and sometimes I post a comment if it might be useful. Can I suggest that a good way of seeing this subject is to look at the EarlofCaldon article and particularly at the 'lines of succession' section. There you will see that the 6th Earl (Denis Alexander) is listed. Below him is listed his uncle, Harold Alexander. There are big two differences, though, and they're both interesting and relevant here. First, Harold was not an heir (his brother, Denis' father, was the heir) and so would never normally have been an Earl (and presumably would not have a second page in normal circumstances). But second, Harold became a Field Marshal and Governor of Canada and actually an Earl in his own right. This seems to serve perfectly the point that some nobles' lives are honourable but not notable and so their Wikipedia entry seems best to stop there - I suggest Denis Alexander is such a case. Whereas some nobles' lives are indeed notable and should have a full Wikipedia page dedicated to them like any other highly notable person. Harold seems the perfect example of the latter. I hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C12D:C200:CCE1:7C3A:3AD4:30B2 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the Who's Who entry, the subject is also mentioned in this 1 book, where he is described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". Surely these sources together are enough to establish notability. Ficaia (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to describe what else is said in the book for those who don't have access to it? That was a rhetorical question, by the way, because you seemed to misinterpret the Wikipedia excerpt you copied this information from; Alexander's uncle was described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". I'm not sure you even read the entire article before voting, given it's clearly stated that Alexander married three times and was married to Marie Allen from 1964 onward, i.e. he couldn't have been a "bachelor". Other editors and I have noted above that the Who's Who entry is almost certainly unreliable due to poor fact-checking and was almost certainly only created not because of anything notable the subject actually did but because of the title they inherited. Those two sources together definitely are not enough to establish notability unless the Great Houses source is quite extensive – say, spanning several pages at least. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC, I don't accept that all nobility are automatically notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Wikipedians. I hope this is helpful to this excellent discussion. "Who's Who" has been cited by the minority so far who would prefer to Keep. This type of publication, including the UK version, is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN as they are self-reporting (i.e. the subject literally writes the article) and not fact checked. WP:GNG is unambiguous that the subject must not be the source of the information:

"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" and "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it".

On a lighter note, @TheTechnician27 made me smile: Yes, it is always best to read the article and look at the points made in this discussion before deciding what should happen. That way, you will not describe someone as a confirmed bachelor when they were married with children. As a side note, the notion of the 'endearingly eccentric bachelor' in an old publication may very possibly be a less-than-subtle coded reference which Wikipedian's may wish to think about before citing? All the best to everyone participating, and thanks very much. Emmentalist (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Plenty of RS, Who's Who entry, and generally we cover this level of peerage. Also there are some Delete votes who infer by their comments, that they simply don't seem to like the concept of a peer!.. Voting against something because of your personal viewpoint of a concept is completely irrelevant.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @deathlibrarian. Thanks for your thoughts, but it is best to assume good faith and to be respectful of other editors/contributors. It's also advisable - said with genuine great respect - to read the other contributions before passing your own comments because otherwise you risk repeating the same points other have and missing all the arguments. For your information, it has been argued by many above, including the people you mention in the pejorative, that a number of policies imply (not infer) the requirement to delete/merge the Denis Alexander article. These include WP:Basic, WP:GNG, WP:Notability and that Who's Who is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN. There are a number of other policies which likely apply and in the end the closing administrator will give weight to all of these when adjudicating. Finally, the proposal is not to 'not cover' the peerage, but to delete the article while merging the relevant information at the Earl of Caledon article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Emmentalist for your measured and very polite response. I did in fact ignore the comments about Who's Who, because as far as I am concerned, it is RS. If you note the WP:RSN it doesn't disallow it, it says editors are divided on whether it is an RS. However, some editors here are saying it isn't, I would disagree. Our own Wikipedia entry clearly indicates that Who's Who is for notable people - "Inclusion in Who's Who, unlike many other similar publications, has never involved any payment by or to the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy. Inclusion has always been by perceived prominence in public life or professional achievement"There is another different publication, called the "Maquis Who's Who". I believe that is not regarded as RS for good reasons, however it is completely separate publication.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Guliolopez - Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. No RS, 'Who's Who' does not pass RS and is often merely a list of individuals. Unless this individual had a seat in the Lords then he fails N. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will note a lot of people have been talking about Who's Who UK as a reliable source. If you check the actual RS noticeboard, list of sources, WP:RSN it does not rule out the use of UK Who's Who. The RS noticeboard discussions rule out another publication, "Maquis Who's Who" - a different US(?) publication which accepts payment for entries. There is a discussion here on the RS noticeboard about that publication which accepts payment for entry. UK and Australian "Who's Who" do not accept payments. The Wikipedia Entry for UK Who's Who indicates that the publication "lists people who influence British life, according to its editors". Certainly Australian Who's Who is well regarded in my country, only notable people are listed in it. People can submit/update their own details once they have gained an entry (and this is a valuable thing as it can assist with keeping information up to date), but you can't simply submit your own bio and you are automatically added, or pay for it to go in...the publication chooses who goes in. As he is listed in Who's Who, my keep vote remains. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP is simply "a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed". I'm aware that A&C Black's Who's Who and Marquis' are different entities. From the search results of the reliable sources noticeboard (where RSP sources its entries from), a couple of the first few results stand out. I won't ping these editors for fear of WP:CANVASSing and improperly influencing the discussion, but in one, an editor of around my experience calls "the existence of an entry in the well established British Who's Who a helpful but insufficient condition to establish notability". In another, an administrator does call WW "certainly a reliable source" but goes on to state: "it shouldn't be used as conclusive proof of notability." The most substantial discussion of "Debretts, Whos Who etc" I can find dates back to 2007, but I would keep in mind when reading it that editors were already calling into question the publications' independence and the amount of notabillity it conferred all the way back then, when notability standards were treated far more laxly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to these comments, I would be concerned that they are influenced or referring to the dodgier (Maquis etc) Who's Who, particularly if they are challenging its independence. The Wikipedia entries for UK Who's Who substantiates it as a selective biographical work, and doesn't raise any issues about it's independence. Certainly, I would ask editors that have some confirmation of the illegitimacy of Australian and UK Who's Who that they should update the Wikipedia page for the publication, with the Reliable Source that confirms their concerns. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, both of these opinions are expressly referring to "Who's Who (UK)", which is listed in the header of the discussion I'm referencing. The third one, which I've since removed because it was potentially ambiguous, may have been referencing Who's Whos in general. That being said, the fact that Who's Whos are published based on autobiographical information sent in by the subjects means it's clearly not independent in the same way that interviews generally aren't considered independent. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that part of the logic of people providing their own bio entry information is that it allows for the entry person to keep it up to date, so that it is in fact accurate. I think they are checked to a degree (?).... but I'm certainly not aware of their being issues with the Who's Who entries being incorrect due to people submitting incorrect information. My point is, Who's Who in Australia and the UK is generally well regarded, and if people have some sort of reliable source that says otherwise (apart from their personal opinions), they should provide it so the publication wiki entry can be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fair to say, I think, that the status of the UK's Who's Who is ambiguous, eminently debatable and indeed debated across Wikipedia (including here). But let's not allow this discussion to be all about Who's Who. It seems clear that Who's Who entries are sometimes used as supplementary sources when there are other reasons for considering the subject of an article to be notable. As @TheTechnician27 quotes another editor, considering Who's Who entries helpful but not of themselves sufficient for notability seems the best policy. Denis Alexander has no other claim to notability. Emmentalist (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmentalist I think at this point, as we both have opposing views on the status of UK and Australian who's who, I think it just best that we agree to dissagree; I don't see that changing one way or the other. Thanks for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Earl of Caledon, because honestly, he's already mentioned and frankly, Denis Alexander was a pretty unimportant guy with an inherited title, no money, who married a game show panelist (as stated above) and had no real historical role. Also, as stated before (but in a longer and angrier way) UK Who's Who really isn't a good source. And honestly, when was this last copyedited? Look at all of those typos, grammatical errors and sketchy relatives (trustworthy verification?). Vdbhi (talk) 7:05 22 January 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the AfD and make these closing comments. The discussion has been excellent (imho): Informed, measured and polite. It seems to have reached a natural conclusion 2 or 3 days ago after 4 or 5 days. Some contributors have argued to 'Keep' based mainly upon previous practice and a Who's Who reference. A little more (although it has been far from one-sided) have argued for 'Delete' or 'Merge (with main Earl of Caldon article) based mainly upon Wikipedia policies including WP:GNG and WP:Basic. It is now a matter for an adjudicating admin, who may decided that other policies are relevant before issuing a decision. It has been a pleasure taking part in such an interesting and thoughtful discussion, whatever the outcome, and I would like to thank all who have taken the time to chip in. I would also like to thank the adjudicating admin in advance for their time and effort [it is perhaps worth saying, as I'm not sure of the full procedure now, that I would be happy to help should the admin decide to merge, but I am not presupposing that outcome]. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 07:21, 25 January 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 List of Squid Game characters. Allowing for the possibility for these articles to exist at a later time depending on the development of the series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seong Gi-hun

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

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

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

We already have List of Squid Game characters, which had its own AFD which closed as no consensus, with the primary argument that for a show with only one season, such a list is generally overkill. But assuming that the list is going to stay, now creating articles on individual characters from a single season is overkill, particularly as most of the content outside of the "character biography" is the same on the list page, and itself the same on the Squid Game page. We're effectively triplicating the plot summary which is not appropriate. Add that the notability of these characters is very very weak (one or two sources providing that, ignoring the recaps that are primary sources). If we're going to have the list, these individual article should not exist. Masem (t) 06:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 06:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 06:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nom. What little nontrivial information there is can be added to the list of characters. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the content in Cho Sang-woo is copied from Fandom. Most of the content in Kang Sae-byeok is copied from List of Squid Game characters and HoYeon Jung. Some content in Seong Gi-hun is copied from List of Squid Game characters and a bit from Fandom, which I removed.— Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Squid Game characters. Notability of the list article aside, there's no need for WP:SPINOUT articles at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. The list isn't even notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be a good idea that there exist different articles made for the individual characters from Squid Game, as an article containing information about the different characters could generally be filled with helpful information about the character in the series, which maybe wasn't on the List of Squid Game characters. In relation to the List of Squid Game characters, much of the information given on the article made for Seong Gi-hun (first created on the 9th of October, 2021), was created 2 months before the information on the character written on the List of Squid Game characters (first created on the 9th of December, 2021). In other words, much of the information from the list were directly taken from the article created for Seong Gi-hun, and were written before the creation of the character's own article. Therefore, it would be puzzling, unnecessary and unfair to delete the article made for the character from the show (Seong Gi-hun), as it was made long before the information about the character of Seong Gi-hun was written, and long before the article named List of Squid Game characters was created. This is of course only when talking about the article Seong Gi-hun, but with the two other articles of the two characters, Kang Sae-byeok and Cho Sang-woo, it is a bit understandable, as some of the information taken from the article List of Squid Game characters is also on the articles on both of the characters, though most likely not stolen from it. However, I do not believe that these two articles (Kang Sae-byeok and Cho Sang-woo) should get deleted, as the information on the two characters' own articles is different from the list, and I don't think that the different characters from the show don't deserve their own personal articles just because there exists an article of a list over the different characters with information about them. Not only this, but concidering that the creator of Squid Game, Hwang Dong-hyuk, announced and confirmed that there will be a 2nd season of the series, it doesn't hurt that there exist articles on the characters from the series before the premiere of the 2nd season. I published the article for Seong Gi-hun 2 months before the list over the characters were made, which only consisted of information taken from different websites, where I also put my sources with details. That is the story of that article before more edits were done by other editors. You can view the history tab of both the article Seong Gi-hun and the article List of Squid Game characters, and you can view the dates of the different edits. — UDoh2Nation (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2022 (CET)

Netflix has made clear they are only on negotiations for a second series, it is not confirmed. Additionally two of these characters cannot appear unless they do flashbacks or prequels. --Masem (t) 17:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, in terms of announcing and confirming the 2nd season, that Netflix hasn't confirmed it, but the creator of the show, Hwang Dong-hyuk, has stated in an public interview with Associated Press that there will be a second season of Squid Game, but that the release date and the way it will be made is uncertain. That is where I got the information from, but it of course doesn't confirm it from Netflix's own side. Does that mean that if two of the characters discussed (Kang Sae-byeok and Cho Sang-woo) do not appear in either a flashback or a prequel, they can't have their own article? If that is the case, then that means that the article for Seong Gi-hun can still be up, in relation to if the character will appear again? — UDoh2Nation (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2022 (CET)

Netflix responded immediately after that AP report that no second season was confirmed. --Masem (t) 18:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Apologies for not reading further into the case. What does this exactly mean to the article, Seong Gi-hun? You stated that the content outside of the "character biography" is the same on the list page, when a big chunk of the content under Seong Gi-hun's section in the List of Squid Game characters was directly taken from the individual article. Because of the reason you stated, it is very inappropriate to take down the article, which contains a major part of the content that was put into another article afterwards. I know you also referred to the other two characters from the series, but considering that the content, which both articles share, was written on the individual article of Seong Gi-hun first, it really isn't fair if you consider to delete the article because of this. The poor sources that were given to the page I fully understand, and that is something that can be edited and fixed. — UDoh2Nation (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2022 (CET)

Worth noting that Season 2 has now been confirmed by Netflix, and it's already known Lee Jung-jae will return as Gi-hun. So I think Gi-hun's article should stay (since he is the show's protagonist and most important character), whereas Sae-byeok and Sang-woo can be redirected to the list article. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is truth that Netflix has affirmed this, there's still a lack of anything now that can't already be covered on the character list page. If there's more about his character after S2 airs (which is likely at least a year out), then we can recreate it from a redirect. --Masem (t) 19:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: per nom. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rediect, the current reception does not seem sufficient to justify keeping this per WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, As the of two of the articles, the information on them can easily be moved to the list article. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 15:05, 20 January 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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King's Family of Churches

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

This denomination clearly fails WP:NCHURCH, as was already noted back in 2008: no reliable secondary source discusses this denomination (if there ever was a mention it would probably simply be a WP:TRIVIALMENTION).
The previous AfD treated this denomination as a non-commercial organisation, but it is a religious organisation (WP:NCHURCH). 13 years after this AfD, the article still has no reliable source to support the notability of this organisation.
No mention of this denomination on Google books, no mention on Google Scholar, no mention in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. The name "Evangelical Episcopal Church" gives many results on Google books and Google Scholar which correspond to various organisations; none of those matches the one this WP article is about (Google books, Google Scholar).
I recommend deletion for serious lack of WP:notability. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable short-lived religious group. I failed to find any independent non-promotional in-depth coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- This appears to be in the nature of a denomination. If it really had 967 congregations and 40,000 members, it was notable; and notability is not temporary. It would be helpful, if it the article had explained what happened to such a large number of congregations. The whole thing seems very odd. Congregations do not suddenly disappeear: it is more likely that the movement splintered and the others went in a different direction. However a denomination in Spain that used the (Anglican) book of common prayer sounds odd. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment below. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -Odd, apparently it had 900 congregations, then 600, in various countries and on various continents. Existed for about 20 years, then completely dissapeared. It was a combination of Celtic and anglican or something? Its very unusual, almost like a hoax article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: now that you say it, the user who created the page had put as the image of an alleged church (congregation) of this denomination, an image which seem to be from an unrelated Lutheran church, as @Explicit: found out; see c:User talk:Explicit#Deletion of File:Localcongregation.jpg. @Peterkingiron: any thought? Veverve (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That pic was one of the main things that was convincing me this was legit! It's all rather dubious now.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted above) -- If true, the first two sentences of my vote above would be right.

Deeper in Christ Ministries appears to be a genuine church in Georgia (probably one congregation). Joseph Rossello apparently exists, leading a church in Exmouth, England and claims there were 1200 congregations. Free Church of England names him as bishop of their South America diocese. I thus wonder it this is not a gargled version of that. If so, it should be redirected there. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a bit of searching here, there is definitely a group of similiar churches that are called Kings Church that seem to be connected in some way, in The UK, Australia, the US and possibly other places - so this article could refer to them - for instance, here and here and here and here - It looks to me these are all connected, as they seem to use similiar branding and seem to be all pentecostal/born again type churches, modern ministry type churches. I noticed some of them refer to a similar service called "alpha". There's little overall information on the overall concept or connection, but there's certainly lots of these "kings Church" similiar churches. So if this is the case, and this is referring to them, then this would appear to be legit. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: the fact one cannot find any secondary source centered on this denomination and has to resort on trying to find parishes with a name which sounds similar (and may simply be a reference to Christ the King) to find information, means the subject does not meet the WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG and therefore should be deleted. All which has been found so far are riddles which are primary sources which on top of not saying anything about this denomination cannot be taken as proofs of GNG. Veverve (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand you are right, there is little secondary information here. But I would refute that these parishes just coincidentally have the same name (They are all called "Kings Church - Placename"), that would appear to be too much of a coincidence. They are also all coincidentally similiar types of evangelical churches.They would appear to be connected (at least loosely, or influenced each other), and as there seems to be a sizeable body of them, or were at some point, that would meet both WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: WP:GNG states its criteria are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". None of those criteria are present here. One cannot operate by instinct and clues to write a WP article or to decide on the WP:NOTABILITY of a WP article; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for WP:OR. A denomination does not have the right to have its WP article, or to have an unreasonably large benefit of the doubt, on the ground that it claims itself to have such and such many parishes. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, there isn't good enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG alone. However you seem to be missing my point - the article (and the information here posted by Peterkingiron) claims to have many parishes, and internet searches seems to reveal that this is in fact the case. As for OR, its perfectly normal for editors to do research to ascertain if the content of an article is legitimate - that's what we do. I thought this may be a hoax article, but that doesn't appear to be the case.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: This information is from a personnal WP:BLOG written by the blog owner about his own life (and it is possibly a WP:PASSINGMENTION). This blog is not a WP:RS, even less when it has to support the claim an obscure denomination existed and had more than a thousand parishes over multiple countries without anybody noticing it. We already have primary sources in the WP article claiming the churches had hundreds of parishes, it is nothing new. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree its a blog and not WP:RS and we wouldn't base the article on it, my point is, like Peterkingiron who pointed it out intitally I guess, it's part of the puzzle we are looking at to work out what is going on with this article. I'm not overly connected to this article, I'm mainly just curious as to what its about, and as mentioned, I suspect the "family" of various "Kings Churches" I linked to are what it is referring to. I'll also point out that this article was put up for AFD in the past and was kept, this being the 2nd nomination of course. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has anyone found verifiable evidence for the claims of significance in the article? If not, deletion appears appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable church or congregation or organization. I cannot find any independent sources that even mention King's Family of Churches. The sources in the article consist of primary refs, a ref that talks about the New Beginning Church of Benissa and doesn't support any of the content in the article, and two refs to doctrinal statements that don't mention the article subject either. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 21 January 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!} 04:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Nag

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

Not notable by either WP:GNG or WP:NFILMMAKER standards. Unable to find any suitable coverage, though it is possible someone more familiar with Indian sources would be more successful. — Goszei (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any reliable sources. All of the the present sources are very poor and most are dead. - SUN EYE 1 03:59, 19 January 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. ✗plicit 03:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bangladesh

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no concept of Greater Bangladesh that includes the entire Northeast India. The lead says this is a conspiracy theory. This does not belong in Wikipedia Chaipau (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chaipau (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you elaborate on your deletion rationale? Wikipedia has plenty of articles about conspiracy theories, such as: New World Order (conspiracy theory), Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, and Conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. What is it about this conspiracy theory that makes it unsuitable for the encyclopedia? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination hasn't attracted much talk but the first commenter is right. We have articles on conspiracy theories and this is not a reason to delete a page. --Killuminator (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this appears to be a very well-documented conspiracy theory that is easily passes WP:GNG, the article could perhaps be renamed to “Greater Bangladesh conspiracy theory” but there’s no reason to delete. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be a well documented legit political conspiracy theory that has actually had real world rammifcaitions, including resulting in violence and death, so certainly deserves an article IMHO. Tied in to current migration. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 21 January 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 withdrawn by nominator [13]. SpinningSpark 16:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

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

Yes, I know this is a featured article. No, I'm not crazy or being disruptive. Quite frankly, this article never should have even existed. For those unfamiliar, this is one of the articles within Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948. One of these was previously brought to AfD with a consensus to merge, that can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). I have chosen this article in particular because of quotes like "Toshack was used sparingly in the tour games" and "An inept batsman". Refer also to the discussion at the Doug Ring 1948 AfD. I believe this should be redirected to Ernie Toshack, potentially anything relevant in the role section merged there instead. I would also like to establish a community consensus on the encyclopedicness (is that a word? If not I'm making it one) of all the "with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" articles. I am concerned that this article, along with the rest, are little more than collections of statistics and improper forks of the articles we have on the athletes themselves. It is no coincidence that the infobox at Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is but a copy and paste of the one at Ernie Toshack. The only sections of these articles that are in any way encyclopedic in my view are the role sections. Everything else is just collecting statistics and not fit for Wikipedia.

For reference, the other articles which I am referring to include the following:

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the bundle - I think it's a mistake to bundle all these articles in on AfD. The arguments that apply to the article about Toshack, which are used as the rationale for deletion, do not apply to every article in the bundle. Bradman, for example. I don't know if the bundle was intentional or whether done by mistake. If there are articles similar in notability to the Toshack one - which appears to have some similarities with the article on Ring - then they might be worth bundling. But there are others that are really very different and would probably be better considering either in other bundles or in some cases separately (Bradman most notably). Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. Some of them are probably reasonable to delete e.g. Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, as he didn't play any Test matches, whereas others are likely not. Either way, they aren't all clearly non-notable, so shouldn't be bundled together. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close Some of these people are still household names decades after the event and I know them even though the time period was before I was born. Some of them I have never heard of. Clearly not helpful to lump them all together. Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin please close this and then we can consider the few that might need to be deleted? --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no doubt that some (maybe most, maybe all) of these should be merged/redirected to the main bio article, however the difference between (for example) Bradman and Toshack is so stark, they cannot possibly be discussed together. I see no reason to drag each individual article through AFD, and suggest a bold merge & redirect approach to these articles (which would follow what happened with Doug Ring after AFD) and then we can discuss individually if/when there is any objection to such action. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that people won't agree on what "those articles" that should be merged are. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but some are such obvious merge/redirect candidates, especially in the wake of the Ring case, that similar bold action certainly shouldn't be contested. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Hamence and McCool didn't play any Tests in that series, and Saggers only played 1 Test. So they seem like the "low-hanging fruit" for this (especially as Saggers and McCool are GAs not FAs, so likely to be slightly less contentious). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten into trouble for doing bold redirects on articles before, and those were stubs. I really am not interested in unilaterally redirecting GAs or FAs. The formal deletion process should be followed here which is why I nominated Ernie Toshack 1948 for deletion. As I said below, the purpose here, in addition to considering the deletion of the article I nominated here, was to gather community consensus as to what the hell we do with all of these forks. I think it's clear at least some should not continue to exist. The question, of course, is which ones get the axe. Notice I said "For reference, the other articles which I am referring to include the following:" that does not indicate I was intending for them all to be listed for deletion along with Ernie Toshack 1948. I should have been clearer since the result is more or less a trainwreck. If I must I will nominate a few articles at a time for deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was not intending for them all to be bundled, I wanted to list them all to give commenters an idea of which articles should or shouldn't be deleted. And in that sense, this has been helpful; there's a general consensus articles like Toshack 1948, along with the similar articles on McCool and Hamence, don't justify forks. Though I'd argue all of these are pointless forks, clearly the community doesn't share that view. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a consensus about Toshack. I think you could, with a merge discussion, get consensus on Hamence and probably McCool and maybe Saggers. I wouldn't extend anything from this discussion to Toshack or similar articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Having articles about a persons playing on one particular team is virtually never justified, and there is no reason to have any of these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather unfortunately, this is one of those times when at least one - and quite probably three or more - of these articles are almost certainly justified. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles for each of the five tests, such as First Test, 1948 Ashes series. What justifies all of these forks in addition to an article for each test? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest all were justified - and it may be that the articles on the Test matches might not be. It's almost like we need someone to take a look at them in the round isn't it? As to why they might be justified: 1948; Australia. It's really culturally significant - much more so than, say, the FA cup match or the 2008 Orange Bowl, both of which have been TFA this month. There's certainly justification that it needs more than a single article to develop the levels of detail required - the tour article is 13,000 words plus long apparently. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is: The team is obviously notable, the players are each notable, the season is notable. What I cannot comprehend are all of these weird forks on each athlete at the games, which to me seems to be a successful attempt to spam as many GAs/FAs as possible from this topic area. If these articles are allowed to stand, it is setting a precedent that we can make all sorts of ridiculous forks on athletes in particular seasons and games. Imagine if we had for instance, an article on Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in Boston in 2015. That would be absurd, would it not? But I see little difference between that and these "with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" forks. I'm not suggesting the team was not very culturally significant, I would oppose any attempt to have the articles on team or the players themselves deleted. Based on the outcome of the Doug Ring 1948 AfD, it is clear the community feels at least some of these sort of articles are not fit for Wikipedia today (they are a decade plus old).

The listing of all of these for deletion, which was NOT my intent, seems to be attracting lots of "Speedy keep, this is a trainwreck, etc" comments, which are not unjustified. That said, I can't nominate any of these individually until the deletion tags on all the other articles are removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Toshack article which is what this AfD is about, I'm assuming. Clearly nothing like notable enough to warrant such a detailed article about a particular season. Nigej (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep We should be discussing these separately and not as a bundle, on some of these there may well be enough information to warrant a separate article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator This appears to have gone off the rails and become a trainwreck (pun intended). The question is, what do we do to put the train back on the rails? I would support having all the deletion notices for the articles, besides Ernie Toshack 1948, removed for the time being, and refocusing this just on Toshack 1948. Alternatively, this can be procedurally closed and then I will immediately renominate Toshack 1948 for deletion, along with several other of these articles (separately, one AfD for each article) which discussion above has indicated are lacking in sufficient notability to justify their retention. If a second deletion is opened up on this, I will give a ping to all the participants here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get this closed and renominate whatever article you want to nominate - perhaps with a very small bundle. I wouldn't do too many at a time. There's too much wordage here to get this back on track wrt Toshack (which isn't, in my view, clear cut either way fwiw). Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^ This. There's no harm in taking them one at a time, either. It might take the best part of year (although the Bradman one would probably(!) be a speedy keep), but at least each one can be viewed on its own merits, or lack of. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Inappropriate nomination. These should be discussed individually. I can see at least 3 who are easily notable. StickyWicket (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, would someone just procedurally close this so people stop screaming "speedy keep" at me? Again, I didn't intend for these all to be nominated, and people are using that as an excuse to ignore the clear issues with these articles. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to explain that I tagged all of these as I interpreted this discussion as attempting to build consensus around the existence of all of these articles. For that consensus to be valid, all of them needed to be tagged. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 21 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TidalCycles

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable music software, poorly sourced and with no substantial assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, besides, there's some clear COI concerns, the article has been mainly written by Yaxu (its author). I don't know if this is the right place, but I think we should take a closer look into other algorave articles, most of them are plagued with COI concerns, really bad references, and are mostly non-notable, for example: Slub (band), Alexandra Cardenas, Joanne Armitage, Fluxus (programming environment). Uwsi (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are placing a a DELETE vote. Please check the proper coding on my vote below and place a new vote or revise your line.Chelokabob (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chelokabob: Formatting a keep/delete/merge/etc. opinion is not required per WP:AFDFORMAT; you can encourage others to do it, but not demand it. Also, those are not votes. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that TidalCycles is non-notable music software, as it is used by professionals in the music industry and is used to produce serious electronic computer music. It was recently featured as the primary tool of choice by nearly 100 performers at a recent 2-day electronic/computer music event. I think there is a gap between how the software is represented on the Wikipedia article page versus how widely it is used in practice. I'm not sure I understand all of the work required to support my claims on the article page but I think contributions can be made to address the concerns here. --Kindohm (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are placing a a KEEP vote. Please check the proper coding on my vote below and place a new vote or revise your line.Chelokabob (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the original author of the software, and have made some edits to the page in the past, sorry if I crossed the line. However I've just checked and looks like references removed as 'CoI' weren't added by me in the first place, so should probably be reinstated. I added suggestions for further references to the article talk page. Yaxu (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are placing a a KEEP vote. Please check the proper coding on my vote below and place a new vote or revise your line.Chelokabob (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PhD student working on computer music and teaching electronic/computer music to undergraduates in France. Tidal is definitely not a non-notable music software. Tidal is a very well known program in the field of computer music, creative coding and open-source softwares. It is very often used for teaching live-coding and music programming in public workshops, etc... I just added some references to the page, and have planned to include more references coming from research papers, various european/american newspapers, etc... There should definitely be a section mentioning music/composition softwares inspired by TidalCycles as well. BuboRaph (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are placing a a KEEP vote. Please check the proper coding on my vote below and place a new vote or revise your line.Chelokabob (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kindohm and BuboRaph: I see that you are both new editors so here’s a short explanation. "Notable" is a Wikipedia-jargon term that does not mean interesting, worthy of note etc. but rather "has been noticed". More precisely, it is demonstrated through sources that simultaneously (1) deal with the topic at length, (2) are independent of the subject, and (3) are reliable (= have a reputation for fact-checking). See WP:GNG for the detailed wording.

Some software could be very widely used yet still not notable. In fact, it is very hard to find good sources for software notability, because online search hits will contain tutorials/documentation (failing (2)), passing mentions of the type "musician X uses this tool" (failing (1)), and forum (e.g. stackexchange) / blog posts (failing (3)), which will pollute the search result and may lead one to conclude that good sources do not exist because they are buried on page 27 of the results. For instance, Overleaf was extremely famous among LaTeX users by 2017/2018, yet the article only exists since 2019 and had some trouble getting accepted.

So, the bad news is that your current arguments are insufficient to keep the article. The good news is that you are familiar with the software and thus you might be able to find good sources easier. The ideal stuff would be reviews in outlets with some editorial control, possibly from the specialized press about music or music software (not sure what exists there).

(I have not searched for sources myself at this point and thus express no opinion about the article.)Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add an important point: that the software is used in some research paper, or even in many research papers, is irrelevant because that would be a passing mention (failing (1)). However, a review paper looking at which tools are used by researchers, surveying researchers about why they use TidalCycles compared to others, etc. would be a useful source. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan:Thanks, that's helpful. Just picking up on the point of research papers, it's worth noting that this isn't technical software like LaTeX used as a tool, but creative software to make music. The papers referencing it will therefore generally be writing about it in the kind of way that you describe, rather than using it, and there are seemingly hundreds at least mentioning it to go through. I'd also point to the software-specific notability criteria. Yaxu (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search brought up many other sources and I have added a few. It appears to be a very popular app used by electronic musicians as well as for educational purposes.Chelokabob (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator doesn't seem to have looked for sources to try to improve the page before nomination (see {{WP:BEFORE}} and Notability_(software)#Nominating_for_deletion). Others have since done this and established notability. I do think the article could be improved, though. (coi: please note that I am the author of this software) Yaxu (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello. I was made aware of this deletion request. I want to join other people who have rejected the (to my knowledge unfounded and wrong) assumption that the software is not notable. I am practitioner, scholar and expert in the field of computer music, and I can confirm the notability - the meaning of which has been described as "has been noticed" - of TidalCycles. This is a well known software for a particular genre within the computer music community. I would like to add, for the record, that I am personally not involved with the AlgoRave community, so consider this a statement from somebody observing this somewhat from the outside, which I guess constitutes one way of "has been noticed". TidalCycles is probably as well known as other software in the area such as Sonic Pi. Besides, I have been working on conference committees and selection processes for applicants in research projects, and TidalCycles is a software frequently used by people whose work I see. In conclusion, it would be useful for Wikipedia if deletion requests were issued from people familiar with the topicality. Sciss-echt (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sciss-echt: I was made aware of this deletion request. Would you mind (1) telling us who made you aware of it (in general terms: "colleague", "friend" etc., or Wikipedia username, but not actual names), for transparency purposes; and (2) tell that person that most processes on Wikipedia (including this one) are not votes, in that the strength of arguments is more important than the number of persons who made them. In particular, your personal knowledge of TidalCycles and its use in given community is worth very little - if you read carefully what I wrote behind "has been noticed" and the links from there it says we need published sources, not oral tradition.

There is not, and never will be, a criterion of "topic familiarity" to make edits, requests for deletion etc. The main argument against such a process is that it cannot guarantee simultaneously that articles about quantum mechanics are under the control of physicists but articles about astrology are not under the control of astrologers. See also WP:IAC which I would wager represents a fairly consensual view among Wikipedia editors. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: its use in given community is worth very little. How is use of a given software / musical instrument worth little? What else legitimizes it? What makes Sonic Pi notable and TidalCycles not? Is it because Sonic Pi is backed up by Cambridge and built-in Raspberry devices? What makes Sytrus notable if its use isn't important, is it the fact it is developed by a huge company like Image-Line? You could argue its innovative and open approach to FM synthesis in combination with it's use of additive synthesis is what makes it notable, but there are tons of innovative softwares that are clearly not notable because they aren't used widely. TidalCycles is both innovative (See this paper from the Conference on Computation, Communication, Aesthetics & X or this one by yaxu himself, yeah I know, COI) AND used widely, surely not as widely as FL Studio or any DAW, but it's one of the most used softwares in livecoding music, as mentioned above, next to Sonic Pi and SuperCollider. If you look at the TOPLAP Calendar, the only current centralized calendar for algoraves, you will find it hard to find a general-language algorave that doesn't include Tidal. I'd go even further and say Tidal IS the most popular livecoding language used by musicians in Latin America and many other regions where the media appeal of Sonic Pi and influnce of its "sponsors" per se (lacking for a better term, english isn't my native language) like Cambridge and Raspberry aren't as important. Yes, Sonic Pi is even recognized and taught by goverments as an introductory tool to programming, even in latin america, but it's not what most artist use. No, we don't have any prepared statistics and polls to show you how TidalCycles is widely used in numbers, because the livecoding community in general doesn't think in those terms (neither do most open source communities). I could point out that the Tidal Club has 1525 users, Sonic Pi's in_thread has 1886 users and SuperCollider's forum has 1184 users as of now. Still, if we get super academical and such, notability is clear from it's use and recognition in multiple papers and publications as shown by other commenters and by yaxu in the talk page. Tidal is even featured in Pop 2 (mixtape) in the last track (Track 10 (Charli XCX song)), a huge mainstream release even considered by Pitchfork as one of the best albums of the last decade. This is even highlighted in the original review. TidalCycles is also notable for its community value inside the algorave scene, for example the Tidal Club organizing one of the biggest virtual algoraves of the last year. Also Tidal being influential for many other livecoding enviroments such as FoxDot, Gibber, etc. --Ritchse (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchse: I think Tigraan meant that use of software isn't worth much in terms of wikipedia's technical definition of notability. Tidal does meet that definition in my view, the page now just needs fixing up. Before it was a bare stub of a page, now it's still a bare stub of a page, just with some statements and references saying how notable it is.. Yaxu (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Many good things are not notable, many bad things are notable. (The topic might be notable regardless of that exact argument.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although previously thinly sourced it is now well referenced and is clearly a notable work. Lame Name (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY case per Lame Name's comment above. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 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 Chemical transport model. Sandstein 08:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transport Chemical Aerosol Model

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

I was going to tag this as G11, but it was restored following a contested PROD (courtesy @RHaworth:, restoring editor, JohnCD is unfortunately deceased) so we're here. I am unable to find sourcing to indicate notability, nor can I identify a viable ATD merger target. Star Mississippi 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. First page of hits on Google Scholar are all from "C. Carnevale" who also appears to be the primary author of the page. If kept, needs to be tagged for obvious COI issues. PianoDan (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed - Very niche, non-notable. Will need to remove reference from TCAM dab. Chumpih ^t 08:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - So it's a legit term, and while niche and uncommon the info could go onto Chemical transport model. Thanks Herostratus et al. The apparent reference from the article author to their paper still is only just below the threshold of self-promotion. I still don't see sufficient notability outside the field to warrant its own article.
Keep. Merge into Chemical transport model if you like. Executive summary: it's not spam, and course complicated scientific material is going to be contributed by professors who are highly involved with the subject. And that's good not bad. And yes it's obscure, but it's part of a larger (and important) scientific field (atmospheric modeling), and this material expands our coverage on that. Which is also good not bad. Detailed arguments follow.

I think you all are looking at this too narrowly. Yes the particular term "Transport Chemical Aerosol Model" is highly obscure. But it's apparently a legit part of Chemical transport model which has an article and is legit scientific field, obscure but important: tools for modeling the atmosphere, which is involved with the study of climate change to a degree, which is a big deal. There's also the page template {{Atmospheric, Oceanographic and Climate Models}} which is big and which this article fits into maybe.

The whole larger field is really complicated or at least our material is (and could maybe use some dumbing down, IDK). But it's serious science, and I think we tend to give more leeway to serious science then rock bands and comic books. I don't know if we should, but I think we do, and that's at least reasonable, and so it would follow common practice to give this subject somewhat of a break. I mean we have thousands of articles on extinct fungi species and all.

So, the article Chemical transport model has many different models listed, but all but one are just bare mentions, but with links to external pages. Since those links exist, it may be that the article Chemical transport model should and eventually will be expanded to give a few sentences about each. Well right here we have that for this term of art, already written.

And one of the listed models wikilinks to an article, MOZART (model), which is comparable to this one I guess. That article, like this one, is short, and you could merge both into Chemical transport model I suppose. I don't care, as long as the material is kept somewhere and there's a redirect.

As noted, there are a number of scientific papers using the term and yes all but one have Claudio Carnevale as the top name -- but there are like various other names attached (as is common; no way to know if they are genuine contributors or just friends, but still). And yes Claudio Carnevale also wrote this article it looks like, but I mean it is part of an acadamecian's job to disseminate their findings to the general public. It's generally encouraged in academia. And I mean we want that. We want scholars to contribute! If the rubric is "well you're one of the few experts the world on this subject, so you can't donate an article about it cos you're too involved" we're going to be losing some science, here.

(And FWIW Carnevale is not tenured yet altho he is a doctor, and while the University of Brescia is legit and not small I don't know if it's top-level or not. Still, it says here that Carneval's written 128 articles and has 1,528 citations. I don't know if that's a lot or not, but he's not a squeegee guy at any rate.)

And I mean its not like Carnevale put his name in the article "Invented by Claudio Carnevale" or like that. He name does not appear in the article. It appears in the ref, along with two other names. Doesn't sound like spam to me. At any rate, its science, its climate change science, and Assistant Professor Carnevale went to the trouble of gifting us the article. Let's not throw that away.

EDIT: Oh and here are two books and three proceedings using the term "Transport Chemical Aerosol Model". This one at least is independent of Dr Carnevale and has a paragraph. 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And for goodness' sake User:RHaworth and User:Star Mississippi, to tag this for speedy as G11 (spam), no no that is not what WP:CSD is for. Articles like this also not for WP:PROD. PROD. When you tag an article for PROD or particularly CSD (it wasn't but you considered it I guess) and the material gets kept or at any rate probably should be kept (which applies to this article), that's a hint that you're being a little overenthusiastic maybe

I dunno... all this worries me. I pick like ten random AfD threads a year, a fraction of a fraction of a percent. I happened here, but what if I hadn't. I've been assured that the closers do take the hour or so it takes to research consider each AfD in a bit more detail as I have here, so I shouldn't worry. I do anyway. I think it's partly on veteran editors to consider that, as the project moves forward thru time, of course we are going to have more and more material, and every effort should be made to find reasons to keep good (or anyway OK) material and not get them into the meatgrinder, here. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree, but when the bulk of the article is "Main features // Information about TCAM features, numerical schemes and applications can be found at the EEA Model Documentation System (MDS) website." it's fairly clear that the goal is promotion. I personally have no issue with a merge should that be what consensus is. NB: I'm pretty sure closers don't spend an hour considering AfDs, nor is that our remit when closing. [I speak in the general sense, I would of course not close an AfD I started] Star Mississippi 01:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, alright. I've long been strongly opposed to commercial editing, and of course COI editing is always problematic, but as I said I think that professors writing in their area of academic expertise is a very small problem (probably even a positive good) compared to the real problems of like paid PR flacks, and people making articles about their unnotable selves or editing them to glorify themselves. So for my part the COI angle means very little in this case and I'd urge you and others to consider my point.

However, there is an important argument against the material, which I didn't bring up, and that is this: we know that "Transport Chemical Aerosol Model" is term coined and mostly used by Dr Carnevale and his colleagues and/or grad students at Brescia U. The question is has this term spread to become a legit term of art in that field? Is it "mostly" used or "almost only used" in Brescia? It may well be the former, so let's find out...

So having written that, let's see.. here Google Books shows a number of books where the term or TCAM is used. I can't and/or haven't bothered to see if it's more than a mere mention, but even a mention indicates its a real term outside Brescia. This book] has a paragraph describing TCAM... it doesn't mention Dr Carnevale so we could switch the ref to that. To my mind this is sufficient. It might well not be sufficient for determining if, say, a Canadian minor league curling team is notable or not. But if we're going to continue to expand and deepen our coverage of science -- and if not, what are we supposed to be doing here? -- we're going to have to have to loosen up some on what is "notable" in science. Otherwise we skew a lot more toward popular culture: TCAM has less coverage than what color dress Oliva Rodrigo wore to the Grammies, and all.

At any rate, it seems very likely that TCAM would rate a mention in the list given in Chemical transport model. That being so, why not also keep the other material we have here since we already have it? Either thru having the TCAM mention wikilink to this article (my preference) or merging this article into that.

Also, "delete" and "merge" are about opposite, since merge means to keep the material in, technically, a different location, so how do you mean "I personally have no issue with a merge"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, the one ref that the article has has a big honken "purchase for $41.95" to actually read the paper, so I mean you've got a good point there. Maybe it is sus. I took it out and rewrote what there is of the article, so I guess it's more OK now. Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per academic references found by Herostratus above. In either case, the line "Information about TCAM features, numerical schemes and applications can be found at the EEA Model Documentation System (MDS) website." should be replaced with a summary of what can be found at said website. I understand why the author creator might have written it this way, and I believe it is in good faith, but it's not how wikipedia works-- we don't just say "go read about it here", we say "this is what it is, and here's a reference that backs us up". Regardless, a good faith mistake in how to present information is not grounds for deletion, so keep or merge. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I took that out and basically rewrote the article (short article so not a big job) and also used a ref which is not connected to the guy who invented the thing and started the article. The article could stand to be expanded a bit. (And FWIW also started the article off in plain English which I wish our scientific article writers would take the time to make at least the first sentence or so describe the entity in terms that the average intelligent reader can understand at least what field it is in. After that you can an get into the specialist vocabulary.) Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Re: my comment on merger, more to mean that a merger consensus could make sense as well as a deletion one if folks believe this should/could be covered. Very few articles are "scorched earth, get rid of it" and this one certainly isn't. Agree to disagree on the rest, since we're both making valid points but just want to wholly endorse And FWIW also started the article off in plain English which I wish our scientific article writers would take the time to make at least the first sentence or so describe the entity in terms that the average intelligent reader can understand. While some are specialized subject matters, and Simple exists for a different reason, our science articles on the whole could be a lot more accessible to the lay reader. Star Mississippi 02:45, 20 January 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 Tattoo You as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 01:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (Rolling Stones song)

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

Heaven (Rolling Stones song)

Song which does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria for an individual listing of a song. The song has not charted, and there is no indication that it satisfies general notability. A review of the references shows that they appear to be listings of the works of the Rolling Stones; we knew that.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	The Rolling Stones All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track	Book	Yes	Not checked	Yes	Yes
2	Nzentgraf.de	Listing of all Stones works	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
3	Setlist.fm	User-generated content	Yes	No	No

This article was submitted as a draft, and was declined as not satisfying musical notability for songs. It has now also been submitted as an article, so that it cannot moved to draft space. I am recommending redirecting to the album, Tattoo You, and would prefer a community discussion rather than redirecting it unilaterally. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only 3 sources, no images, not enough coverage to have its own article. SoyokoAnis - talk 20:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tattoo You. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:05, 19 January 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!} 00:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Salifu

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

Was draftified, but it is unclear whether or not a regional minister of Ghana (seems to be the equivalent of a governor) meets WP:NPOL. Courtesy ping Onel5969. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards a keep, but interested in others' reactions. This person has had at least two national-level Presidential appointments, one of which also required the approval of Parliament. Regional ministers are constitutionally mandated (section 256 of the 1992 Ghana Constitution) to "represent the President in the region" (s.256(1)(a)); the nature of the appointment process indicates this is more than a high-level administrative post (which would not be presumed notable). He also served as Minister of State for the Planning Commission (which is covered in section 86 of the Constitution). While Ghana is not a federal system and the work area for the first appointment was regional, the appointment itself was a national political process, so I think there's reasonable grounds to argue this person has held at least two national level offices satisfying NPOL#1. There is also some further sourcing available which I've added to the article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn's reasoning above, and the likelihood of more coverage like this existing online today had the events not taken place twenty years in the past. NemesisAT (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his position seems to be one that passes NPOL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:06, 22 January 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!} 00:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Federation for Digital Economy

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

The entity's page is end-to-end WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be more Arabic language coverage but there'are sources that probably in English as well. It clearly does pass WP:SIGCOV, and probably WP:NCORP in WP:RS based on the below, before getting into the Arabic sources..

Unbh (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV based on the following sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and a quick search will show more sources to indicate notability -- Mok Joe (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources presented by Mok Joe appear to demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 24 January 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. The "keep" arguments failed to adequately address notability concerns. The fate of Srivastava Group is independent from this nomination and should be discussed at the appropriate venues. ✗plicit 12:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Delhi Times (newspaper)

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

Advertisement of a fake news website pretending to be a 30 year old newspaper, note that the editor who has been restoring the advertisement version has only ever edited/created or tried to create pages related to its parent company, i.e the Srivastava Group. There are bunch of advertisements on the net for this website, some disclosed and others undisclosed. See this disclosed one in The Print, parts or whole of which can be seen reproduced in the undisclosed ones. The only independent coverage from RS is in the form of passing mentions in the coverage of Srivastava Group, which has acquired a bunch of defunct, unused and misleading domains and repurposed them as part of a disinformation network.

See these articles about the group in The Hindu, CBC, or BBC, etc for context. Quoting from the latter, "Some suspected Russian interference, but EU Disinfo Lab, which is an independent NGO, traced the servers behind the website to Srivastava Group. The researchers then uncovered a vast network of English language fake sites serving India's lobbying interests. Many of the fake websites use names of defunct newspapers to provide a veneer of credibility. EU Disinfo Lab have dubbed these "zombie" sites, because the names were resurrected from dead media outlets. For example, one of the sites is called Manchester Times ... The IINS is based at the same address in Delhi as Srivastava Group and an obscure media outlet called New Delhi Times. BBC News Hindi reporter Kirti Dubey visited the address and was told by a security guard there was no office in the building. A neighbour who had lived in the area for 40 years told her he had never seen anyone in the house. Srivastava Group did not respond to the BBC's attempts to request comment by phone and email. When Indian media reported the publication of EU Disinfo Lab's initial findings in November, the New Delhi Times' editor in chief Ankit Srivastava tweeted that Pakistan's intelligence services were trying to tarnish him, although he provided no evidence." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a bizarre misinformation site, but even if it's legit it does not meet notability guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here's the disinformation report summary -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any guideline prohibiting misinformation or disinfo entities from having their own page in the articlespace, (for e.g., The Onion); it is just that there isn't any established notability based on what was cited. Also, Disinfo.eu is not a reliable source and so the report should not be considered in this AfD nom. Multi7001 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not citing the report but its coverage by BBC, The Hindu, AL-Jazeera, NYT etc. Claiming The Onion to be a misinfo/disinfo site also shows that you don't really understand what those words mean. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any mention by BBC of disinfo should be considered. The page may need to be rewritten entirely. Also, the Onion publishes satirical articles; however, some users are not aware and spread the content as if it is genuine news stories, resulting in unwitting deception. Some younger users too, however, tend to use the articles for more deliberate spread. Multi7001 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but the Onion exists. The evidence is that the New Delhi Times is not a real entity, just part of a cover for a disinformation campaign run by a central group along with many other fake newspapers. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be irrational from my end to make such a determination, since I do not have much recognition of the subject. Reporting from the CBC, BBC, and The Hindu are what will and should steer this AfD nom process. Multi7001 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought that was a real site. It will need to be checked and removed from WP. scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out Fake news in India mentions the New Delhi Times but didn't link to the wiki entry New Delhi Times (newspaper) rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jeez, how did it survive for more than eight years? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, kept under the radar for so long. Nice catch. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first source, Daily Excelsior, is somewhat reliable but only contains a small amount of info on the subject. And the second source, OrissaPost, is practically an unreliable source. Insufficient reliable sources and SIGCOV confirming that the subject is both authoritative and a legitimate Indian media entity. Multi7001 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

′′′KEEP′′′: The Newspaper is one of the oldest newspaper's in India and looking at the newspaper's article there have been no fake news published. It is suggested that all the WIKIPEDIA experts before suggesting for the deletion should find news or articles from the website and tell which news is fake. If all the WIKIPEDIA experts are suggesting the news published on Pakistan is fake news, then they need to please highlight which articles and exactly what in the articles are FAKE News. And the WIKIPEDIA expert who has nominated for deletion has only used those articles written and published by Pakistani Origin Journalist , which can supported by evidence. This is just a simple case of propaganda war which is being initiated by some users who seem to be having one sided approach. I understand that this will also seem to be one sided approach, but no one seems to consider the real facts, that New Delhi Times, has not published any fake media, which any one is able to prove. Without any evidence of Fake News published by New Delhi Times, you are just maligning the reputation and goodwill of the media outlet that it has established over so many years. Delhiwikiwriter (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022

Please provide a reference that states it is one of India's oldest newspapers. Multi7001 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)DelhiwikiwriterDelhiwikiwriter (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#New Delhi Times (newspaper) for the discussion about this user. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG lack of coverage, and above comments. This is not the old newspaper. New newspaper is not notable. Venkat TL (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fake news, WP:HOAX. Skyerise (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The mainstream sources describing disinfo should be considered to both counteract the info inputted in the page and to establish its notability as a fake news website. It may need more reliable sources for it to meet WP:GNG as a fake news source, like for example InfoWars. Any negation of the credible reporting by the CBC or BBC as a disinfo entity lacks rationality and logic, and should not be taken seriously in the AfD process, unless there are reliable sources that counteract their reporting. Multi7001 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and describe proerly, and if necessary protect. This. is the sort of information people could reasonably look for here, but we should get it right. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree. The problem is there are so many sites in this network. Perhaps protected redirects to Fake news in India or Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan. or even Srivastava Group (though this page already points there) with the full information. At the very least, the current version should suffer WP:TNT, imho. --SVTCobra 02:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been possible if there was more coverage of the particular website, at best it can exist as part of an article on the Srivastava Group (which I do think should be possible to create) but otherwise this is far from meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send to hoax museum per WP:HOAX. Agree with nom; this flew under the radar for far too long. Nice catch! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Srivastava Group - it doesn't look like a hoax. There is nothing in Delhi on the map published by disinfo.eu (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-_KpPuAyLGUhz_R84V12Hu5C_i2oJPSs&usp=sharing). What is mentioned is that the sites on the map are linked to the group that also publishes the New Delhi Times. It probably is the same one established around 30 years ago (dates are unclear - theprint.in says 20 and 28 years in the same article), and is acknowledged by the Srivastava Group as belonging to it, unlike the fake sites. It is mentioned in the Indian Newspaper Society Press Handbook, but it is "nearly invisible"(thewire.in) or "obscure" (BBC) and "posts highly plagiarised or syndicated articles" (boomlive.in). It was probably not notable before the coverage of the fake sites and I'm not sure it is now, but an article about the group would be an alternative to deletion, replacing the bad redirect at Srivastava Group; there is also coverage at indianexpress.com and tribuneindia.com, and the content from Fake news in India#Fake news against Pakistan could be moved into the article. Fake news website is probably not the most accurate description of the sites in this network, as syndicated content, biased coverage, and op-eds are not the same as fake news; they are described as fake because they resemble more established or significant publications and disguise their origins. A865 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you read deeper into the PDF of the DisInfo report, you will find that New Delhi Times and Times of Geneva are considered the feeder sites which generate the fake news and thus neither of them are on the map of 265 sites which republish. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Srivastava Group took some old defunct newspapers and pretended to be publishing them: "zombie sites". rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:47, 24 January 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. Sandstein 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliprasadh

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

Not notable and sources are not reliable ~AntanO4task (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~AntanO4task (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in support of Notability:

Kaliprasadh is a published Tamil author, his books are published by Yaavarum Publishers and Natrinai who have hundreds of titles. Prior to that, his work has been published in leading online Journals (Vallinam, Solvanam). The publisher held critical review discussions in Chennai in December 2021, where notable authors like Akaramuthalvan attended and presented on Kaliprasadh's works. Kaliprasadh is one of the invitee guests of honor at Vishnupuram Vizha 2021 which is being attended by former Indian Union minister Jairam Ramesh

Evidence in support of Sources: The sources provided in the Wikipedia article include Ananda Vikatan.com (which is a well-known magazine in Tamil with 100-year history), Dinamani (Tamil's leading newspaper). Other sources include websites of authors Jeyamohan and S Ramakrishnan who are themselves highly notable as leading authors in Tamil literary sphere.

One of the Wikipedia admins has deleted external link YouTube videos which are direct evidences of a critical review about literary work. They have done so without even considering if the link was Relevant, Unique resource as per Wikipedia guidelines. This is a highly suspect circular logic in applying Wikipedia rules and guidelines

It is obvious that the AfD has been placed without even a basic awareness of what is notable or not in Tamil literary sphere. I submit that the AfD be removed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

___________

Wikipedia's policies.. under WP:CREATIVE

1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors:
a) Sahitya Akademi Award winner S Ramakrishnan on Kaliprasad
b) Sahitya Akademi award winner Nanjil Nadan has written introduction to Kaliprasad's collection of stories.
more link
c) interviews in media covering tamil literature - here and here
d) he was one of the guest speakers in the Kumaraguruparan Award 2018

While this alone is enough to establish notability, lets look at one more policy requirement under WP:CREATIVE
2) The person's work (or works) has: won significant critical attention
a) [Sahitya Academy Winner S Ramakrishnan selected Kali Prasad's work among the best works of 2019.
b) Review in Vikatan, leading tamil weekly
c) Reiew in The Hindu (Tamil)
d) Review in Dinamani]
e) Review in Kalaignar News
f) Review in Solvanam
g) Review in Vallinam, Malaysia based tamil magazine

Given that the author has well met two of the criterias and not just one for notability, I submit the page may be restored.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshsum1spcl (talk • contribs)

Comment - Simply the article is failed to cover WP:BIO, specially WP:BLP, WP:ANYBIO --~AntanO4task (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I have submitted specific clauses in policy you can’t respond with blanket link to a policy… specify which aspects of those are not covered by the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshsum1spcl (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply read WP:ANYBIO which is just 3 lines.--~AntanO4task (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears a trial to promote an author who doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR yet. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly Keep. I don't like to vote when I can't read the sources, but I feel the need to write this as a keep to counterbalance the Delete arguments, which I find insufficient, since they are just stating a guideline without explaining how this article doesn't meet it. My understanding of WP:NAUTHOR is as follows: despite the fact that this is not explicitly stated at WP:NAUTHOR, articles on authors routinely survive AfD when they have multiple (that is, two) published books with multiple (that is, two or more) reliable-source reviews. This person has two books, both with three published reviews. As I see it there are therefore only two possible deletion arguments here: 1) that three or more of these are not reputable reviews; 2) that a literary translation with solid reviews does not count for notability, and that the additional evidence here, such as being a special guest at an awards ceremony at which your work is a topic of discussion, does not bump a borderline case over the notability line. Neither of those arguments have yet been made. If someone can make them compellingly, I'll change my vote. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per asilvering. oncamera _{(talk page)} 16:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Intro para says R. Kaliprasadh (born 1979) is a Tamil writer. He has written short stories, translations, and literary reviews and criticism. This is not notable. "Literary Work" says he contributed to magazine, etc. Most people do such contribution. He or his work not won considerable awards. He is just an author and not per WP:AUTHOR. If the aricle is written as per [[WP:AUTHOR]], let me know which part and does it fit with reliable source? --~AntanO4task (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered this question, and (clearly, I believe) explained the two possible deletion arguments. The lead sentence is not obligated to explain why the subject of an article passes notability guidelines. (For comparison, take this unquestionably notable author: "AUTHOR was a British writer and lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford University (Magdalen College, 1925–1954) and Cambridge University (Magdalene College, 1954–1963)." None of those things are inherently notable either.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm reluctant to delete an article about an author in a major literary tradition, when that author has apparently published many books, just because I am totally unfamilar with the tradition. It's possible that the references are good, and we accept references in any language. There is no rule that the article must say X is notable because ____ . Such an argument was occasionally used in my first days here, but that was when we were still floundering around with the meaning of notability and the criteria for deletion; I haven't seen it since 2006 or 2007. I and many others thought it absurd then, and very soon so did everyone. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 19 January 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 05:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Trichter

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

Was redirected, then reverted without explanation or improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be expanded upon to meet GNG, but the subject is notable by being a registered Democrat nominated by the GOP for a statewide office (this fact got this article on the main page of Wikipedia many months before this deletion request). Received 1.5 million votes and ran an important campaign that should be covered more should this article be allowed to stay. Capisred (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don’t normally host articles about unsuccessful candidates for office unless they are notable anyway, and I can’t see that this subject is. Mccapra (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for a state office. KidAd • SPEAK 19:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se, but this features neither properly sourced evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, nor a credible reason why his candidacy would pass the ten year test as a topic of more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. (Having a cross-party nomination isn't enough to vault a person over that bar.) Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 22 January 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 05:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEG Link Mode

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

Unsourced (1 dead link) stub covering a non-notable product (WP:PRODUCT) Headphase (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge somewhere into ASUS#Products, is references allow. I failed to find any independent in-depth coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear relevant enough for a mention at the relevant target page, otherwise fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 19:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom SoyokoAnis - talk 20:15, 18 January 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.

[1] Michaels, Samantha. ""Defund the police" was a rallying cry in 2020. Minneapolis is about to vote on what that means". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2022-01-19.

[2] Duggan, JD (2021-08-18). "Democratic Socialist challenges Green Party incumbent in Minneapolis Ward 2". Sahan Journal. Retrieved 2022-01-19.

[3] Navratil, Liz. "Robin Wonsley Worlobah once again declared winner after recount in Minneapolis council race". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-19.

[4] ttps://www.billboard.com/music/latin/christina-aguilera-la-fuerza-songs-ranked-1235021166/

[5] ttps://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-latin/christina-aguilera-ozuna-santo-video-1287548/

[6] ttps://www.etonline.com/christina-aguilera-and-ozuna-drop-sizzling-santo-single-and-music-video-177976

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]