Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 25	July 27 >

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 consensus not to delete. There is no consensus for or against merging, but a further discussion on this can be taken forward on the article talk page or another appropriate location. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme points of Denmark

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

This could be recreated if someone comes up with a source spelling out any of these points, but as it stands, this is 100% pure original research. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but trim down to sourced info. I don't see why we should pick on Denmark when so many other countries have equivalent lists (Andorra may be an exception). There's a smaller list at WorldAtlas. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet Archive only shows the cited page going back to 2019, I'm not convinced that their data is not dependent on our pages, especially since their numbers exactly match ours as recorded in the late 2018 version here. It is of course possible that our numbers got copied from an earlier, differently named page of theirs, but there's no proof of that either. THat said, if they could be proven to be not dependent on us, I'd be somewhat willing to go along with this resolution, with a big caveat I'll go into below. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The question of national extreme points pages is a broader one and there are many dozens of them. Certainly there's no case for deleting this one. Smb1001 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, this can be sourced to WorldAtlas. Going by previous WP:RSN discussions, that's considered a WP:Reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It can't all be so sourced, and as I said above, there is reason to suspect that they are repeating our information. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the stuff that could be sourced to WorldAtlas now is, and all of the stuff that was unsourced after doing so has been removed (and this was already the case when you wrote your response). It's possible that WorldAtlas got their information from Wikipedia, but the real question is whether WorldAtlas is a WP:Reliable source. That is to say, does WorldAtlas have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Going by previous WP:RSN discussions such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#worldatlas.com, the answer seems to be yes (see also Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#Geography and history). TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the nominator bothered to open up the Template:Extreme_points_of_Europe which is shown in the bottom of the article, it would be evident that every country in Europe and the European Union have such articles. Also many countries outside Europe have them. In that case every article should be nominated, but people are interested in this info and therefore all these articles were created.--BIL (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as all these articles are concerned, it seems to me that it would make a great deal more sense to merge the lot into one or a few list articles. The creating of separate articles when a tabular display woul;d be as accurate and far more succinct is a common bad habit here. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to single out this particular article. I agree with Clarityfiend that the article should be trimmed and all the information therein properly sourced using reliable sources.--Darwinek (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is are reasons: the abominable sourcing, and because this happens to be the one I was made aware of. If others are as bad, they need to be dealt with as well. And nearly every time I try to do a group nom, someone tries to shut it down procedurally, so I'm not going to bother any more. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the items listed in the {{Extreme_points_of_Europe}} box are redirects to sections of larger articles. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be OK to merging this into Denmark (or wherever) once the sourcing issue is dealt with. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment on other pages I've looked at a handful of the European examples, and so far Andorra is the only example with sourcing at all. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geography of Denmark as an editorial decision; that article should include much of this information and currently does not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geography of Denmark. The same has been done with many other European countries. Exceptions make sense in the cases of big countries with many dependencies (ie. Norway), but for most countries this is information that should be listed on the respective geography page, imo. Kaffe42 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from what I've seen with others, this sounds like the right solution. providing the unsourced statements don't make the trip. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Sabretooth

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Review at Dread Central, critic rating at Allmovie, both are WP:RS. Another review at Horror Forever [[1]], although not sure it has been vetted for being a RS. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link the Allmovie review? I cannot seem to find it. The other link you provided is clearly a blog, it is run by blogger. Either way, the two critic reviews are supposed to be indications that there is significant coverage of the film. Despite this, it is nearly impossible to find articles talking about this film. I don't think this film meets the "significant coverage" part explained by WP:NF or WP:GNG. Am I missing a lot of sources? BOVINEBOY2008 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - [[2]], it only has an Allmovie rating (1.5 stars out of 5), but no review published. I've seen other AfD's where only the rating is needed. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - NFO stipulates that the review should be by a national recognized critic. If we don't have a by-line, I'm not sure we should consider that a measure of its notability. BOVINEBOY2008 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per [[3]], Allmovie is considered a WP:RS and can be used toward notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Coverage in a reliable source does not mean notability. We also have to look at the significance of coverage. Having a star rating with no other information amounts to a capsule review which is not an indication of notability. BOVINEBOY2008 18:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        But also, WP:IAR :) Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        But also, WP:NOTIAR: "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Donaldd23. A detailed article about a Sci-Fi Channel film that has a director, producer and nine cast members, all with Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please review WP:NINI, notability is not inherited. This is not a valid argument for keeping. BOVINEBOY2008 21:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not persuaded by two !keep votes currently. Discussion needs further input to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bed & Breakfast (2006 film)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage, sources in article are from non-notable interviews with actor or citations about the actor/not about the film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFILM. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-sourced entry with two image files, five inline cites and four external links. One cast member, Rúaidhrí Conroy, has numerous acting credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Roman_Spinner, I actually checked all the citation and came to a different conclusion. In fact, I concluded--in line with BOVINEBOY--that the article is poorly sourced. The sources are about an actor, not the movie. WP:UNRS is a good read on the sources... As to the Conroy, please read this: WP:NOTINHERITED. It is an important concept of WP:ATA. Thank you! Kolma8 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added another source, a Wired article. I disagree with the nominator in that the interviews are non-notable. NemesisAT (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NemesisAT... Well... You did not added a "Wired article", but a blogpost from Wired.com. There is a difference. And if you actually read that the blogpost says then you will see that it is an aggregation of google searches. Blogposts in general do not meet criteria for reliable citations on WP. Kindly ask you to refer to WP:UGC for more details. In general WP:RS is a good read that can help you to understand BOVINEBOY's position on the matters in regards of the notability of the sources. Kolma8 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I did my own WP:BEFORE and failed to find anything notable. Four external links: One to Feiss IMDB page (irrelevant, needs to be deleted); one to the short's IMDB (relevant); one to Rotten Tomatoes site (404 - NOT FOUND, needs to be deleted); the last one "Extracts..." is irrelevant and needs to go. None of the sources neither directly about the short or notable. Thus, fails WP:NF. Kolma8 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very well reasoned deletion argument of Kolma8.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tinta Invisible

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG PepperBeast (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English Words

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was erroneously tagged for speedy deletion on the claim that "the 2010 album that won the award was an album by a different band" -- except cursory investigation revealed that the "other" band was actually just this band having renamed itself, so that's not grounds for deletion per se. But what is a genuine problem is that the award in question isn't even a nationally significant one for the purposes of WP:NMUSIC #8 in the first place, and is sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence that it's an award that garners media coverage in order to be notable enough to confer notability on its winners -- and the other two footnotes here are also both primary sources rather than notability-building media coverage. And about all I can find for other coverage is blog entries rather than solid or notability-building media coverage. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the band from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DevelopIntelligence

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

Promotional page by SPA. No evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows a press release about a later acquisition, and zero RS coverage, let alone anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. User Developintelligence removed a PROD, added a pile of press-release sources that don't fix the problem, and rewrote the article to resemble an advertisement even more than it already did. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. #1 is not an RS per WP:MEDIUM. #2 has a popup asking to provide an email to keep reading the article, which is not acceptable. #3 is a press release. #4 doesn't have a real author name. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dr.KBAHT: so you're aware, sources can be paywalled or registration-walled without it impacting on their acceptability on sourcing Nosebagbear (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, that's normal practice for some libraries and other good sources. However, an unexpected popup suddenly asking to provide personal info doesn't look like a registration-walled source, but more like a task for an ad-blocker. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, may redirect to Pluralsight VViking_TalkEdits 22:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete Could perhaps move this to a Draft if there are RS to be found. Meaning vet everything being offered and double-check. But current form is not acceptable. - Scarpy (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article looks like a press release and looking at the edit history shows many of the edits were made by accounts obviously associated with the company itself. A redirect to Pluralsight would be sufficient until an article with reliable sources is created.DogsRNice (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Eagle Gym

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The only source in the article seem reliable. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the gym: [4], [5], [6] and [7]. There was a report regarding an incident during a game held in the gym. Search results also cover games, notably from NCAA, UAAP and V-League, held in the gym. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as has significant coverage in reliable sources. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above commenters, passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Feral

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

Subject fails WP:NARTIST. I accepted this draft (written by a CoI editor) only because I think many other editors would say the subject passes the bar for WP:GNG, although I personally don't think so. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources given are dubious and most likely the result of press release churn and paid placement. He has no independent coverage in reliable sources. --- Possibly ☎ 21:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are neither independent not reliable. Article claims coverage in the NYT, but https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22Roman+Feral%22 yields nothing.
That "worldwide expansion in over 18 galleries" Guess who has venues in London, Monaco, Miami, New York, Courchevel, Megeve, Cannes, Honfleur? Galeries Bartoux is an international group with 18 galleries, according to itself.
Also note that https://cranyz.com/international-artist-roman-feral-combines-luxury-nature/ and https://www.justluxe.com/lifestyle/arts/feature-1969082.php are the same article, only in different languages. Thought we wouldn't notice? Vexations (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I must say an 'interesting' strategy to accept a draft from Articles for Creation then immediately nominate it for deletion! This artist is possibly on the cusp of notability but, realistically, the only news source of any repute is Forbes and only a couple of paragraphs about Feral in that article. The other sources I'd say were 'stuff on the internet' or sources with a clear vested interest. I can't find anything else obvious online to persuade me otherwise. Sionk (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the collections are not in major galleries as is required by WP:NARTIST and the sources are obvious churnalism - the Forbes article mentioned above is a contributor piece and no more useful for notability than a random blog post. Doubtful many people would vote to keep this, to be honest. Spicy (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies

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

To quote from the article body: "The Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the Interdisciplinarity. ... The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

Publons
Crossref
ORCID
Academia.edu"

I hardly think anything more needs to be said. JBL (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS, indexed nowhere selective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of indexing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NJOURNALS --Whiteguru (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misses NJournals and GNG. Sounds predatory, but not bad enough to have generated coverage that would satisfy GNG. Note that Publons, despite being Clarivate owned, is suspect as it even includes OMICS titles and allows publishers to give the most egregious promotional descriptions of their rags. --Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also looking at Special:Contributions/Research531... there's likely WP:PAID going on here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, almost certainly. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misses WP:NJOURNALS by a wide margin. (Boasting of being "indexed" in Academia.edu is like boasting of existing.) Paid editing would be unsurprising. XOR'easter (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I believe that the editor is a representative of OMICS (OMICS representatives, paid or otherwise are community banned) and I have given a final warning. —SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Research531 First of all, i am not related or representative of OMICS Group, Secondly i am not even related to the journal on which i wrote the article. I am just the beginner and want to contribute to wikipedia. But i was wrong, wikipedia is full of people who instead of encouraging people, they will discourage and not only discourage but also criticize for the things which new users never commit. Hence, i am really sorry that i tried contributing to wikipedia and you can delete my article. Thanks for letting me know that their is no scope for new editors or users. Not only this, but just now i realized that all my previous genuine edits were also removed without any reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Research531 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Ramić

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

Easily fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NFOOTY as well as his two appearances in the UEFA Conference League are against a Moldovan team (the Moldovan leage isn't fully-pro). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in a competitive match between two clubs both from fully-professional leagues and therefore meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per nom, lacks news coverage to qualify GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per new findings. Has played in FPL's. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Moldova and Bosnia are FPL's so he does pass WP:NFOOTY. Dougal18 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dougal18, But it looks like he didn't play a single match at these leagues. Apparently, he played only in the Europa League, but no league matches for him. It seems a case of WP:TOOSOON for me. I believe he'll pass WP:FOOTY in the future, but right now he fails to pass it. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 09:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Cup matches between two FPL clubs give a pass of WP:NFOOTY. Dougal18 (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dougal18, Yes, you're right. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dougal18. Played Cup matches between two FPL clubs, therefore he pass WP:FOOTY. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 10:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated the page for deletion as I was made aware by @JTtheOG that he failed NFOOTY. I assumed the Moldovan league was not fully-pro without checking the list. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad there, I don't think I aware about the Moldovan league being a FPL. I'll have to double check next time. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ortizesp: He doesn't pass GNG. If anything, he passes NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect to the decade article, but there was not enough discussion of that to declare a consensus result for it. RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 2019

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

Fails WP:NLIST, which states a list must have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Note the sources plural. The only organization discussing these as a group is in fact Playboy itself. We are not a directory of Playboy models. All it seems to be doing is listing a bunch of non-notable women, which opens up the doors to all sorts of BLP issues, and then just lists their body measurements, an obviously sexual detail. I fail to see how it is in any way encyclopedic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all other Playboy Playmate list articles for reasons listed here; the sources used in this article and every other "Playboy Playmate" article all seem to be primary and definitely not fitting for WP. wizzito | say hello! 19:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Playmates have certainly been discussed as a group, e.g. "Seven Tenths Incorrect: Heterogeneity and Change in the Waist-to-Hip Ratios of Playboy Centerfold Models and Miss America Pageant Winners" in The Journal of Sex Research, Harding, Les, A Biographical Dictionary of Playboy Magazine's Playmates of the Month, 1953-1979 (McFarland 2019) and Edgren, Gretchen. The Playmate Book: Six Decades of Centerfolds (Taschen 2005) (although the last may not be entirely independent). pburka (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles about small groups (like Family of Barack Obama) work well when the subjects have received significant RS coverage as a set, and the article omits irrelevant personal details. This on the other hand is twelve pseudobiographies stapled together. The sources suggested by Pburka contain information about various Playboy magazine models, but not about the particular group of people who were featured in 2019. I share the nominator's view of the body measurement parameters in Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate. Cheers, gnu57 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We have lists of of Playboy Playmates for every year from 1954 through 2019, presumably split up due to WP:SIZE. Is it your position that some of these sublists are notable, but not 2019? pburka (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the general concept Playboy Playmate is probably notable, and that some individual Playboy models may warrant stand-alone BLPs, but the format of the year-by-year lists allows for a lot of low-quality pseudo-bios of non-notable people. (List of people in Playboy 2010–2020 is a somewhat better format IMO.) gnu 57 04:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unsure at this time. Surely there are past AfDs of porn individuals in which editors have voted "Redirect to List of such-and-such...", so I would be hesitant to undercut a likely landing spot for numerous incoming redirects. But the current format is wasteful fanboy bloat. Who shot the pics is irrelevant, as is their body measurements. Toss those, toss the entire "personal details" infobox, retain the name, the pictorial month, and date and place of birth. Once all this is on a single line, you could easily do List of Playboy Playmates (2010-2019) and condense sixty-six(!) articles into eight. If there's interest, I could try to mock up what the 2010-19 one would look like in a sandbox. Zaathras (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Something similar already exists: please see List of people in Playboy 2010–2020. Cheers, gnu57 04:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I think the decades list is a much superior way to cover the topic anyway, no need for the years. A simple list by decade is more than enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that the current format is less than ideal and would support merging or rewriting. pburka (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh. Well, there we go then. :) Individual year articles serve no purpose. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the per-year articles, per the above pointing out that by decade lists already exist. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per-year articles; none meet WP:LISTN for lack of significant secondary coverage. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the per-decade articles; this is just a WP:CFORK of those lists plus a COATRACK for biographies of non-notable people. I hope that all the other articles of this form can be redirected based on consensus here and without a follow-up discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is basically Wikipedia promoting a cite as notable which really is not. It is one of our last relics of our past unjustified overcoverage of pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mess, in my opinion. By the way, was redirected here for some reason (was looking for an actress, to be honest). Will try and see if "Meagan Moore" is an actress or a Playboy playmate... :)--Filmomusico (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Mohd Yaasin Tuan Mohd Hanafiah

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

All the cited sources are just trivial mentions. Google News and a Malaysian source search yielded nothing better. Clear consensus from previous referee AfDs that referees are required to satisfy WP:GNG and are not guaranteed an article just for officiating a game or games between two clubs in a fully professional league. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Jaysonsands (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — seems to only have passing mentions in other possible places. — CVValue (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since this is a BLP, I'm going with the more conservative of the two options discussed, but open to reviving as a draft if the creator or another editor wants to take specific responsibility for it. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Smith

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has yet to play any game at senior level. Fails WP:GNG as I can only find routine articles about his transfer to Zorya Luhansk ([8], [9], [10]). It's also important to note that the article was already deleted before. I would draftify for now, until he makes his pro debut. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom - coverage does indeed seem fairly routine at the moment Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anacortes School District

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

un-referenced school article fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Both the school district and its high school are probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a school district, not a single school. No evidence of WP:BEFORE efforts. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a school district. Compare with others please.ClemRutter (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of failure of WP:BEFORE, and success of WP:HEY effort by Eastmain. Besides, school districts are almost always notable, and we typically redirect non-notable elementary and middle school articles to the appropriate district. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An editor once said that school districts pass WP:GEOLAND. I am pretty sure he was right. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is super lacking in useful information in an encyclopedia and super overly covering details that do not matter much in the long run of things. The very nature of these articles is they tend towards overly detailed snapshots of an arbitrary moment. Having read literally thousands of these articles I can say virtually none have any useful information, and we would be better off removing them than letting them stand as an overly detailed snapshot of the world in about 2011 for the next 50 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, was there supposed to be a policy-based deletion rationale there, or are you simply intentionally making a statement of preference knowing it's against consensus? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As school districts are almost always notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Valenti

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

Despite I'm the creator of the page I start an AfD discussion. There was a concensus that says that one or two appearances aren't enough for a player to be notable if GNG is failed so comprehensively. Dr Salvus 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 17:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found three sources: ^[1]^[2]^[3] At this point is he notable? Dr Salvus 18:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ riservati, GoalSicilia-Tutti i diritti (2020-10-12). "Ex Trapani: il giovane Valenti vola in Toscana". GoalSicilia.it - Le squadre del calcio in Sicilia e non solo... (in Italian). Retrieved 2021-07-26.
^ Redazione (2020-10-30). "L'ex Primavera del Trapani positivo al coronavirus". Trapani Granata (in Italian). Retrieved 2021-07-26.
^ Redazione (2020-05-09). "Primavera Trapani, con Valenti tanta velocità in attacco". Trapani Granata (in Italian). Retrieved 2021-07-26.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Delete: Updated my vote 7.29 based on discussion below. Based on my interpretation of WP:NFOOTY Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable.. He played in games in the Serie C which is a professional league based on this list. It is weak because Trapani was excluded from Serie C for this year. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FiddleheadLady, true but given that there is a concensus that says that with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. When I created this page I wasn't aware of this fact. Dr Salvus 20:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Can you point me to where the consensus is written so that I can learn more? FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FiddleheadLady, I honestly don't know where is it. Courtesy ping @GiantSnowman: that may know where is this consensus written Dr Salvus 19:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FiddleheadLady and Dr Salvus: plenty of AFDs ended up 'delete' even though the player met WP:NFOOTBALL listed here, but see also e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991) and many more. Giant Snowman 20:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also referenced in WP:WINNEROUTCOMES - bullet point #4 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is helpful. I have updated my vote FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comprehensive failure of WP:GNG makes the presumption of notability from playing 4 minutes in Serie C invalid. Jogurney (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is routine and not hugely significant and he only very trivially passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in presented sources lacks more than trivial depth. Subject seems to lack even the bonafides sufficient to attain even the initial SNG presumption, let alone an ultimate GNG determination via in-depth coverage in RS. Article's author is, however, to be complimented in being a newish editor remaining open to the AfD process and contrary consensus. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. While time elapsed, there's consensus that beyond notability issues, G4 also applies.

I will also EC-salt Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhagaja

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

unreleased film, yet not decided the releasing date. Still a case of WP:TOOSOON. Un-referenced article. Agreed with the previously declined draft by Robert McClenon DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and salt until an AfC reviewer requests unprotection. This is now the third version of this article or draft, and the second version was just recently draftified (by me) in April. All three versions merely state the existence of the upcoming film and a small cast list. 1st draft (Draft:Madhagaja) created in January, 2nd article (Draft:Madhagaja (film)) created in April and draftified per AfD, and now this article just created in July. While WP:Parallel histories are fine, I have to wonder if there is some kind of payout being sought for creation of the article if people are not willing to build off one of two drafts already there. -2pou (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom and the rationale above. Kolma8 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - There is no material difference between this and the previously draftified version or the previous draft, and the film still does not satisfy future film guidelines. The good-faith explanation for the multiple creations is that the editors are ultras, enthusiastic fans for the director or one of the actors. That does not mean that we should accept this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom -- DaxServer (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparel 2000

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

Seems to be a non-notable custom embroidery company; no secondary sources found on search, unsourced since 2009. Fails WP:GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to support this company meeting the requirements of WP:NCORP or to the lesser effect WP:GNG. The 2 sources I found were just simple mentions they worked with some groups to make patches [11] and [12]. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Yannick Filipović

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

Unnecessary split. The two goals scored can easily be covered in the Bio article. No comparison to an article like List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo or List of career achievements by Lionel Messi. Simply put, only tip-top tier athletes warrant this type of page, and Filipovic is not there yet. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he hasn't even played his first game of professional football yet! This is way, way too soon! When he starts getting mentioned in the same breath as Ronaldo or Messi, then we can create this. He doesn't have any career achievements worth documenting currently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above Dr Salvus 18:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not worthy of a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sorry excuse of a pathetic article. Govvy (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all the above and the nom JW 1961^Talk 21:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any career achievements list that has to say he scored two goals in his life is not worth saving, nor is one where the only achievement is a regional under-19 tournament. The elephant in the room here is why someone with no professional appearances has an article anyway, but there may be WP:GNG with all this interest from Peru, which I always believed was a country that had better players than him anyway? 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:FD08:8733:2B16:CAAF (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary spilt. Anything worth saving here can easily be covered in the main Yannick Filipović article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly ridiculous to have such an article for a player who as yet has accomplished basically nothing in his footballing career -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to the sources provided being either not sufficiently reliable according to our standards, or not providing significant coverage of this person in particular. RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Morgan (Pilot)

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

While this biography is amply referenced, it looks as if none of the source are at the same time indepth and reliable. The source with the most content is probably Honorstates, which is basically a wiki. The oral history source is a primary source, and has little about the pilot anyway. The third important source is the Stardust studios, again not a reliable source. Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC as most of the sources are not reliable or independent. "notable for being one of the first forty-three African American combat fighter pilots ever" please... I note with concern that the creator has also created pages for a number of other Tuskegee Airmen who similarly seem to fail notability. Mztourist (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these others are a rather mixed bunch as well. Some are notable for other reasons (e.g. Archie Harris (athlete) or Joe Adams (actor)), and the first group of 6 graduates may be more notable for being the first: but many of the others seem to have the same issues as this one. But it seemed safest to start with a single nomination and take it from there. Fram (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG.Sources used in the areticle leave much to be desired, but sources do exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these sources are WP:RS that give significant attention to the subject? Fram (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  [13][14] You haven't presented anything to back up your claim that sources supplied are unreliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't think that [15] is RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the second source[16] are passing mentions, and the book is self-published. So no, no reliable sources, and certainly none with significant attention for this person. Fram (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As was the case with many of the articles for WWII members of E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rader, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewitt Lowrey), passing mentions and being a member of a well known unit does not equal notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per nom. I'm not seeing any real RS here. Intothat darkness 21:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I proposed for deletion two other similar articles by this editor, Henry B. Perry and Richard C. Caesar. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United 2021-22 Current Squad

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

PROD contested with reasoning No Wikipedia page is covering appearances as a collective and contract dates. For that reason, it should be allowed to stay.

Rationale was No need for a stand-alone article on the current squad. Manchester United F.C. covers this perfectly well enough. I also don't see this functioning as a redirect.

As far as I can see, this remains valid. The squad can be updated on 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season as transfers happen. No need for a separate article covering this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think what the article creator was after was 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season, where this kind of info might feasibly be covered. Separate article entirely inappropriate, and nothing worth merging/redirecting. Giant Snowman 15:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not allowed to add total current club appearances and goals on the club page. I would be happy to add it in a format agreed by others but such a statistic cannot be found as a collective elsewhere. --Chats90 (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chats90: it is incredibly poor form to simply start a new article to display the information you want, if there is consensus at an existing article not to have that information. Such conduct, if repeated, would be viewed as disruptive and would lead to you being blocked. Giant Snowman 16:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information has correct citations from the Man Utd website. Wikipedia belongs to everyone, sure you can go ahead get the article deleted. You make up your own rules then threaten bans for anyone that does not conform to your wishes (others as well). Not even once has anyone told, "hey if you want to make a contribution let's figure out how we can add those statistics to a page, all I have been met with is unwarranted criticism and unhelpful comments of how this information is not useful". There would be no need to block me as I officially give up. I don't have time to fight ego wars. I have decided to stay away from Wikipedia altogether. You insist that this format is not allowed yet I find it on pages of hundreds of other clubs. Perhaps I have misunderstood the goal of Wikipedia, either way, it doesn't matter. The only thing that is poor form here is this relentless bullying. I will not be getting involved in this toxic contribution cycle. Thanks for all your hard work and others in the past. --Chats90 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info is on the encyclopaedia already but just in different places. For cumulative appearances, we have List of Manchester United F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances) and List of Manchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances) - you are more then welcome to maintain these lists and to help keep them up to date and to add new entries where appropriate. I'm sorry that you feel bullied, this was 100% not my intention. I started this discussion in the hope of gaining consensus. Wikipedia works by consensus. Whilst having a separate article on a squad hasn't been done before, it isn't a case of 'it will never be done' but such an idea would need to gain consensus from the community. This deletion discussion is a place where any editor can come in and make their views clear on the subject. I still, personally, believe that this information is better in the articles that they already in and that having a separate article for a current squad is unnecessary but that's only my opinion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The squad is well documented on multiple other pages, being in a separate article is just duplication of existing content. Which is clearly not needed. Govvy (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete squad list already exists in many other places, the discussion here shows this is just an attempt to circumnavigate the fact that one user wants to add lots more information to those tables, against the recent discussions/consensus at WT:FOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Either boldly include the information on the 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season page, or build a consensus on the talk page. Otherwise, I agree with Joseph2302. --MuZemike 04:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The info was already boldly included at 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season, but unless I misread the discussion at WT:FOOTY recently, there is a consensus among the WikiProject that tables like this are not appropriate. – Pee Jay 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems a little WP:POINTY to me. – Pee Jay 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nominator as we don't need that information for a separate page. HawkAussie (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%9322_Arsenal_F.C._season, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%9322_Inter_Milan_season

Such Hypocrisy on Display. I added the above on the season's page where it should be like other clubs have but clearly, Wikipedia contribution is a walled garden. As I stated above I do not want to be part of this toxic ego war so go ahead and do what you want.--Chats90 (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is and should be on the per-season page, and not as a separate article. Also, "Current" is a problematic word to have in a title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Muur (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, also ridiculous title, because in 12 months the 2021-22 squad won't be the current squad any more..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rifat Hasan Rabbi

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

The awards would probably prevent a WP:A7 deletion and, although clearly written with intent to promote, it isn't blatant enough for a WP:G11 either. That being said, I found absolutely nothing in a WP:BEFORE and the provided references are all social media and self-published sources. YouTube videos don't demonstrate notability nor does having an Amazon Music or SoundCloud page. Absolutely anyone can get those. This clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Do not send this to draft, just remove it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Dear Sir, Rifat Hasan Rabbi is an Musical Artist.He is verified artist on many International Media. So,I think he should have a article on Wikipedia.I give some valid link for verification. I give his Google Scholar Link.https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1a4jzasAAAAJ It is his google scholar link. Please,don't delete this article. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rif.Rifat (talk • contribs)

Rif.Rifat - it does seem that he has a lot of citations on Google Scholar so maybe he meets WP:NSCHOLAR! I have added the discussion to Academics and Educators so someone with more experience on assessing academics can help. Why does the article not contain any reference to his academic work and why is there no coverage online of all of this work that he is doing? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand what the Google Scholar link above means or how it relates to him -- there are articles listed there from before he was born (the first article is from 1995, while the subject was born in 2003). Not to mention, this article is about him being a musician, not an academic (it would be difficult for a 17-year-old to be an extensively published scholar). Most of the citations in this article are just links to his own music or unreliable sites such as Medium.com. I don't think he qualifies for an article at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Spiderone, the google scholar profile, while impressive, is also a fake (none of the listed papers I checked have him as an author) or a hijack (possibly of Rifat Atun, not sure). It is also a poorly done fake, as it has him writing academic papers from before his birth (e.g. papers from 1995, Rabbi was born in 2003 according to the article). As for the musician side he lacks significant coverage and this is corroborated by the YouTube test - he has 9 subscribers on YouTube and all of the videos have less than 100 views.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input. It's really quite alarming that Google Scholar would allow such a hoax to be on there! I trust that there isn't always great fact-checking going on there or it's a website, like Wikipedia, that anyone can edit? I was confident about failing MUSICBIO and GNG so when the creator threw the claim to notability as an academic in there, it really had me flapping! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The profiles on Google scholar are, in my understanding, user generated. You need to verify your e-mail, but it will let you add any paper to your profile. They might cull bad profiles by some process, but in most cases real researchers won't post fake profiles of themselves, e.g. claiming authorship of someone else's papers, as that would be plagiarism and a large academic scandal. Note that the papers themselves, and citation counts thereof, are harder to fake. It is the user profiles (and associating papers to user profiles) that are the user generated portion. They probably allow users to associate papers to deal with names changes, differing names forms (e.g. full name, or initialed), and names in multiple languages (particularly non-Latin names).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Google (being Google) finds a lot of publication information by scraping, but the profile pages can be modified manually to a considerable extent. For example, their system might not be able to tell that two different papers are really the same (say, if one is really just a preprint version of the other). So, they offer the option of merging items. It's also possible that a paper will show up in their system with author names missing (maybe if it was cited with an "et al."), so you can claim papers as yours even when the system doesn't automatically find them. In this case, it looks like someone created a profile entirely by claiming papers from other people. We've got soil bacteria, psychiatry, oncology, control theory, some pure mathematics ... The common factor appears to be that an author on each was named "Rifat". XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Spiderone's and User:Eostrix's comments above. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also there's "cross-wiki self promotion"; deleted twice on arwiki; created by Rif.Rifat (locked gloablly due to the cross wiki abuse) and Rifat Hasan Rabbi (blocked on arwiki as the master of the previous sock) --Alaa :)..! 20:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Eostrix. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~Yahya (✉) • 07:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nomination. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 08:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30-point rule

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

This should be deleted ~~or merged to Leta Stetter Hollingworth~~. The two usable provided sources are not very significant coverage, and the third is a self-published source. I also have some concerns about WP:FRINGE, because the article may be lending the theory more credibility than is proper. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. The theory reeks of pseudoscience, but does not seem to attract enough attention in RS for there to be a meaningful debate about it. NightHeron (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't seem to be an idea actually used in psychology, and it fails the WP:FRINGE standard of being wiki-notable pseudoscience. The first source is an interview with Christopher Langan on a random website for day-trading hobbyists; we'd really have to stretch to call that reliable. The third is self-published, as the nominator pointed out. The one in the middle is the closest to decent: it's a blog post by a subject-matter expert hosted by a publication with at least some standards. It also indicates that the topic is nonsense. The article currently says This theory is usually attributed to psychologist Leta Stetter Hollingworth. The blog post says: As far as I can tell, the idea of the 2 standard deviation IQ communication range did not start with Leta Hollingworth. Hollingworth (1886 – 1939) was a pioneering psychologist who did conduct research on high IQ individuals and published extensively on the topic; however, she never used the term ‘communication range’ nor explicitly discussed such an idea. Instead, the term was coined by some guy writing in the magazine of a high-IQ society. Hollingworth was writing specifically about leadership, and in childen, but Towers extrapolates the point to claim that any kind of ‘genuine’ communication is impossible across a 30 IQ point gap. [...] The reference to specific numbers (“+/- 2 standard deviations, 30 points”) gives the illusion of scientific precision, but these numbers were plucked from the air. Wikipedia is not the place for things made up one day in an attempt to blame other people for one's own failures of communication. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this "rule" was not invented by Leta Stetter Hollingworth, a merge/redirect would be inappropriate. Also, it's clearly bollocks, and far from being notable bollocks. Tercer (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'comment I thought it might be a good article or a good stub. Thanks for the research. I did see a bit on high iq communication problems. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23] BlackAmerican (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form, this is closer to folklore than scientific inquiry, and there isn't enough coverage to justify an article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I note a 2017 article which claims a smaller than 30-point rule. There is probably an encyclopedic topic here, but it would require a new title and new article content. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)#Development. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorg Neumann

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

GNG fail. Neumann is just doing his job as an employee of Microsoft; he does not inherit notability from a job that lot of other people could be doing. The coverage is all either trivial or about Microsoft Flight Simulator... and not in-depth coverage about Neumann.--- Possibly ☎ 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a possible redirect target: "Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)". Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)#Development. The only RS that covers the person himself is the last one. All other sources feature a mention of him and a quote. There's maybe this source out there doing a search, but even that's still not a huge mention. --MuZemike 15:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)#Development, for which he is best known. WP:ATD-R and lack of significant coverage across the available sources. czar 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)#Development, lacks coverage not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Rattan Nashier

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

Absolutely a non notable business-woman. Trying to promote her company through Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious example of WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references provided are based on announcements by the family firms in which the subject works. Searches find her being quoted as spokesperson in announcement coverage about RattanIndia Solar but I am not seeing evidence demonstrating individual notability. AllyD (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. Half the article is not even referenced. Peter303x (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trevance Salmon

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

Contested PROD, player seems to have only played 5 matches in the Jamaican league (and so fails NFOOTBALL see WP:FPL) a BEFORE search does not establish GNG for me JW 1961^Talk 13:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 13:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 13:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I accepted this article through AfC on the merit of it passing WP:FPL as I mistakenly remembered Jamaican national league to be a fully professional one. Prod was removed without addressing the issue - author simply removed "professional" from the user box. Subject is definitely a fail of WP:FPL and WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 13:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hexadecane. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hexadecyl

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

hexadecyl is not a notable topic in itself. It is part of many chemicals, some of which are notable, but as a group or radical, there are almost no writings. ChemSpider entries show nothing for notability as it aims to list everything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; if the article were a well-balanced, well-written overview of the distribution of the hexadecyl group in nature, its properties, and the importance of chemicals that contain it, I'd suggest keeping it. But as it stands, the article can't decide whether it's about a group or a radical, and is merely a handful of odds-and-ends. Compare to the (good) article on the Phenyl group. There is nothing in the current article worth salvaging. Elemimele (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amongst functional groups this one is hardly notable compared to other major ones as listed on the page for Functional groups. Further, small more commonly encountered alkyl functional groups don't have pages. If this one were permitted it would suggest a lot of other trivial functional groups would need or deserve pages and would quickly become cumbersome. Some of the information on the article might be better served on other pages, but not the point of a re-direct. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a few sentences into Alkyl, which is currently underdeveloped and could use some material about the uses and properties of individual alkyls. Reyk _YO! 08:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge though I prefer target of Hexadecane, or possibly create a new target on "large alkyl groups" (whatever the term for that is). There is the WP:XY issue regarding Hexadecane being the target as opposed to Alkyl. The group is rare enough that I think hexadecane is the better place to discuss it, and alkyls with >12 carbons aren't even mentioned at alkyl. Most of the content looks to be a bad attempt at a literature review and can be removed. Also also, the title really should have been "Hexadecyl group". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, make one sentence into hexadecane. Christian75 (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Candle (band). czar 10:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agapeland

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

Although a few of its individual albums are probably notable, the overall setting/series probably isn’t since there doesn’t seem to be any discussion of it specifically anywhere. Seems like standard fancruft that could be merged into the artist page. Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Candle (band). The topic does not have sourcing required to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Candle (band), at least it is mentioned there (as a title of an album). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Candle (band)
Redirect to Candle (band) as a non-notable setting for fictional elements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National (Wales)

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

A very new media outlet, with references that one would expect for a news organisation engaging in PR and other news organisations mentioning the existence of a new competitor. But these are WP:MILL, none of which show it to pass WP:NCORP Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Keep. Unreal7 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage from reputable news outlets like the BBC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Sdkb. I know we can't cite XYZ at AfD but I'm just saying about 90% of British newspaper article are like this. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of being WP:TOOSOON. The BBC article is the only one truly independent and unbiased, I don't see how one article can be described as "substantial coverage". All the other sources are connected to The Nationals publisher and parent company. Hold the Front Page appears to be a resource website for journalists. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the BBC; Press Gazette, for instance, looks like a fine source to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nominator stating that the references are what you would expect for a news organization and that that somehow discounts them. These sources are not what you would expect for such a new publication, and the fact that they do exist–and in this early stage–implies the subject is likely notable and will likely continue to become more notable. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above commenters. The story on BBC News is an indicator that this is notable, and likely to receive more coverage in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khaleed

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

Glaring formatting and sourcing issues, as well as the fact that this is an obvious autobiography aside, this individual hits neither WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSIC. While the generic name makes him pretty hard to look up in the first place, the only text published in an ostensibly reputable source I was able to find [24] is still total fluff. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do not confuse this guy with Khalid (singer) or Khaled (musician) or DJ Khaled, as they keep showing up in searches for each other. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can find little beyond the one puff piece located by the nominator, and otherwise this singer is only visible in the usual streaming and social media sources. The article is a pretty standard attempt by management to turn a limp social media ad blitz into a Wikipedia entry long before notability is established. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not go through AFC which would probably not have approved. I recommend SpeedyVViking_TalkEdits 15:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, as they're not one of the more famous people with similar names. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good day my name is Roselyn jordan I wrote an article for “Khaleed” I’m done writing the the article but it was voted for deletion I would love to object this so this will be able to show up on search engines.

{Article for deletion by wikipedia has be written properly with Adequate informations, Templates, citations, Early life, Personal life, Career and Facts about Khaleed} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roselyn jordan (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC) — Roselyn jordan (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — From an expert in Nigeria related sources, this article has 0 reliable resources. Furthermore the rationale from the nom; AngryHarpy is spot on, what Doomsdayer520 said is extremely important to avoid the potential confusion, and per the rationale from Joseph2302. Celestina007 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited provide no evidence of notability. I've tried searching, but come up with nothing relevant to this Khaleed (it's a common name, and there are others, at least one of them a singer). Maproom (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The no-bold comment above ("Good day...) should be acknowledged as a Keep by the creator of the article. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Available sources fail to demonstrate notability. A Google search for his full name yields no other reliable sourcing. WP:TOOSOON TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A before search does not bring up much. Subject does not meet GNG or MUSICBIO. Princess of Ara_(talk) 11:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Per mom, subject has no sign of notability. The Living love ^talk 09:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to complain, but it turns out WP:ATA doesn't actually say anything about not citing your own mom in deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability can be proved Nosebagbear (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kinobe

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

Seems non-notable. and to have been created (2004) as a promotional article.

No references, and tagged as such for over a year. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am genuinely surprised at just how difficult it is to find good sources about this band online, because they were one of the better known groups of the late 90s/early 00s chillout scene in the UK, and "Slip Into Something More Comfortable" is still widely used today as a background track in TV and radio. There's a review of their first album [25] and one of their second album [26]... it's true that they faded from view after the first two albums but I expect there will be other reviews of their early albums in print versions of the dance music press from the time. Richard3120 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the two album reviews linked above in hotpress and The Independent, they also have a decent staff written bio at AllMusic here. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the sources above, they have been reviewed in The Guardian. NemesisAT (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisk: The Serpent King

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A detailed article about a Sci-Fi Channel film that has an inline cite and an external link as well as a producer and eight cast members, all with Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please review WP:NINI, notability is not inherited. This is not a valid argument for keeping. BOVINEBOY2008 21:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls well short of meeting notability guidelines for films Dexxtrall (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As hard as I tried to find reliable third-party sources, I found none. It's simply not a notable movie. Helen(💬📖) 22:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Wayne Williamson

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

BLP does not meet notability thresholds: supporting roles as actor do not pass WP:NACTOR and notability is not inherited from co-founding the Esquires coffee shop chain. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article cites a number of reliable sources and acts as a useful collection of information from a regional perspective. I think the article should be reduced to a stub as an alternative to deletion. Michaeltyu (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing is not an "alternative to deletion". If a person or thing clears our notability criteria at all, then their article is always allowed to be as long or as short as the depth of what the sources enable us to say — but there's no such thing as "notable enough to keep a stub but not notable enough to justify adding to it any further". Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing is not solid enough to get Williamson over WP:GNG — his acting is sourced solely to his IMDb profile, which is not a source that helps to establish the notability of an actor, and the stuff about the coffeeshop is sourced entirely to specialist franchising industry newsletters, most of which just briefly namecheck Doug Williamson as a giver of soundbite in an article that is not about him. And of the just two sources that are actually about him in any non-trivial way, both come from specialist franchising business newsletters which aren't widely distributed enough to bring the GNG all by themselves if they're the best sourcing he has — they'd be fine for use amid a mix of much more solid sourcing, but they don't magically clear the bar all by themselves if they are the most solid sources on offer. Neither actors nor businesspeople are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for having jobs per se, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any better references than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Pasha (footballer)

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

Can't find any evidence that he ever played in Liga 1 (Indonesia) anywhere. Also couldn't find anything to suggest a cap for Indonesia while searching at National Football Teams (I looked through each of the years' goalkeepers for Indonesia and couldn't find him and also couldn't find anyone called 'Kemal Pasha' in the search bar), which, in my view, is the most reliable source on that subject. There is, therefore, not any clear indication anywhere that he actually meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches of his name in conjunction with the small amount of info given about him in this article are only coming back with Wikipedia mirrors so I can't see how WP:GNG is met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Don't pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 10:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 13:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arron Lyall

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL and searches under both 'Aaron Lyall' and 'Arron Lyall' do not yield any significant coverage in line with WP:GNG. The only possible ATD would be a move to draft space, however, the article is over 3 months old so I didn't feel it appropriate to send to draft myself. Deletion is also a valid option, in my view, as future notability is never guaranteed. Best coverage appears to be a loan announcement in Press and Journal and two sentences in Daily Record relating to a goal scored in a testimonial against Crusaders. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the moment fails GNG and NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 16:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media supply chain

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

This could be deleted by WP:G5, since it is a creation of a blocked UPE sock of Yoodaba, but the combination with logged-out socking with proxies successfully games G5. Used references are primary sources (e.g. Amazon AWS marketing) or don't talk about media supply chain. MarioGom (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with delete not because the subject isn't notable, or because I think it should be deleted because it was written by a sock, but because the current article is in a really poor state. It's full of jargon, its bitty, it leaps around from one little example of a part of the chain to another, and it just doesn't give an overview of the process by which modern media arrive in my sitting-room, which I assume is the media supply chain? As such, I think an article would be justified, but in this case the TNT option is best. Elemimele (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McKechnie

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

Has played 24 mins in a league not listed as fully professional on WP:FPL so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass either. McKechnie requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only decent coverage I can find is one article in Rangers News, which is not the best source and, in any case, is only one source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - at the moment he clearly fails both GNG and NFootball. As a young player, it is still possible his career could see him pass these in the future, but he does not need an article unless that happens. Dunarc (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coye Brook

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

Nondescript creek. It is said that "Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as ... rivers" are notable, but this is not major and is smaller than a river. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bulk-produced nothingness, no indication of notability and presence on maps or a database of map names is not enough. Reywas92^Talk 16:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The preferred criteria for this, rather than WP:MAPOUTCOMES, is WP:GEOLAND criterion 4; with that in mind, this does not pass that criterion as there is no information on the creek beyond its coordinates. Curbon7 (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mogaji

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

~~Professor of~~ Marketing academic does not meet WP:NBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article is created by an SPA, close connection is observed. This IP address (119.160.96.208) (is it the same editor? Possibly. ) Anyway, this IP address makes the claim the article passes NPROF.
(passes WP:NPROF) at AfC. It has WP:PEACOCK in the writing, again suggesting a close connection. Does not meet WP:NBIO --Whiteguru (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability threshold isn’t met as neither GNG nor relevant SNG is met. The tone of the article comes off as an attempt to promote the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe WP:TOOSOON with his academic appoint just starting and he just graduated with a PhD in 2016. His GS profile is still thin and a major impact on the field has not yet been demonstrated. The Literati award is a good sign but its a single paper award and now what NPROF is looking for. --hroest 14:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until I just fixed it this article contained the lie that the subject is a professor. He is in fact a senior lecturer, which is well below the rank of professor. It is very unlikely that anyone with such a position could pass WP:PROF, but I will not investigate further any article based on such a lie. Why do so many academics feel the need to lie about their positions? Anyone would think that they are above such considerations, and would realise that they will be caught out anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Subject does not meet NPROF as his listed publications are not highly cited and the listed award does not meet NPROF#2. A before does not bring up sources to meet the GNG either. Princess of Ara_(talk) 12:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faunalytics

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

Not notable per WP:Notability (organizations and companies) — no significant coverage, no independent sources, no multiple sources, no reliable sources no secondary sources.

When I first looked at this article I found 19 of 29 citations pointed to the subject's own website (faunalytics.org), 1 to GuideStar.org (which is mostly self-published information), 9 to animalcharityevaluators.org (which is an animal rights advocacy website purporting to be similar to GuideStar, and certainly not independent of this subject), and not a single citation to an outside independent source.
A web search brought up only mentions within the same advocacy field (vested interest), mostly brief and trivial mentions, and nothing independent. (See WP:ORGDEPTH.)
The article contains 18 further external links to the subject's website in violation of WP:External links.
The two primary editors of the article have been a single-purpose account and an employee of the subject.

Just doesn't pass the notability test for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Platonk (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is obviously promotional, but it can be fixed if independent sources are implemented throughout the article. I've looked up the subject and it appears in independent sources, but it needs to be determined if any of them really fit into the article to prevent its deletion. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's points are mostly good criticisms of the article, but not WP:DELREASONs. Deletion is no substitute for cleanup. Keep since WP:GNG is established by significant coverage, including (1) Nonprofit Chronicles, (2) Vox, (3) World Animal Net, (4) Animal Charity Evaluators ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per NCORP, "Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: corporate annual or financial reports, ... interviews by executives...". The four sources you link to are (1) an interview with two Faunalytics corporate execs, (2) an article with some quotes from an interview with a Faunalytics exec, mentions Faunalytics but doesn't cover the topic of the company Faunalytics, (3) another interview with a Faunalytics exec, (4) iffy source because the 'reviewer website' deals only to rate/rank animal rights organizations and all the links in their source report fail with 404 error (many of the links are purported to be copies of the corporate financial reports). Note also that the wiki article for Animal Charity Evaluators also had two AfDs, one of which was adjudicated as Delete for lack of notability, so it's pretty iffy to consider using ACE as a citation contributing towards notability. So you have not yet presented a single source which contributes to corporate notability (NCORP) which requires that the organization "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Beware that all those other animal rights articles on the web which "mention" Faunalytics are not sufficiently independent and are engaging in circular reasoning and/or using the logical fallacy of argument from authority. Platonk (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok interesting, I did not know about the rules for interviews. Strange how it says "interviews by executives", not "with". In any case, the sources 1 and 4 provide secondary WP:SIGCOV. 1 is part interview, part secondary analysis.^[1]

Note that WP:GNG does not require secondary sources to be notable themselves. I don't follow how any ref would engage in fallacies or be dependent when they describe what Faunalytics does. Nonprofit Chronicles is not even specialised in animal advocacy, and if it was, so what? There is no rule against SIGCOV coming from the same industry, as long as they are independent of the subject, which they are. 4 is the HTML version of an in-depth review of Faunalytics. It comes out as 12 pages of text if you print it. I don't see why a few dead links from that page are a problem.

The book (5) Cherry 2016 also spends two paragraphs on Faunalytics and its impact^[2] ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Che Green spends lots of time thinking about how to improve advocacy on behalf of animals. Green, who is 43, is the founder and executive director of Faunalytics, a research organization that is intended to help animal advocates become more effective. Begun in 2000, Faunalytics does original research, conducts surveys and impact evaluations in partnership with animal protection groups, and maintains a curated library of more than 4,000 studies. It also conducts an annual survey called the Animal Tracker, which is the only longitudinal survey devoted to animal issues."
^ page 47: "Amber did not cite specific studies, but said she had read reports from Faunalytics that found that people who become vegetarian(...)"
pages 117-118: "Perhaps the strongest embodiment of this logic of practicality in activists' learning processes comes from Faunalytics (known as the Humane Research Council until 2015). Informed by corporate-driven market research, Faunalytics conducts focus groups with non-activists to find the best ways for annual rights SMOs to reach their target audiences. Demonstrating this move towards practicality, Heidi described the importance of Faunalytics's work: (...)"

Weak keep Trimton shows two sources that are niche (hard to avoid in this topic) but in-depth. Since this is an organization that specializes in finding and collating data for others to work with, their impact lies mostly in how much their material is used and cited, and that's quite substantial, as searches readily show. Note also that many older mentions are under the previous name "Humane Research Council". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or userfy. Its bad, but I've seen much worse. It's ore WP:SOAP than WP:SPAM, but it could be fixed. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article suffers from a WP:REFBOMB and imitation of a notable subject. Sources mentioned in this AfD are passing mentions and non-independent sources. Also, quotes and opinions by employees and executives of any company, do not constitute significant coverage per CORPDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- but 1, 4, and 5 are neither of these things? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REFBOMB. References consist of passing mentions and non-independent sources. And the four sources linked above consist of an interview with two Faunalytics executives, (b) an article with some quotes from an interview with a Faunalytics executive and mentions Faunalytics but doesn't cover the company, which is the topic (c) an interview with a Faunalytics executive. Interviews such as these would be a primary source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References 1,4, and 5 are on the Faunalytics website. These are not acceptable sources for indicating notability. These are not secondary sources nor are they independent of each other. But more importantly, they are not independent of the company. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn: I think Trimton was referring to 1, 4 & 5 of the links Trimton provided in this AfD. As to those: (1) is an interview with company executives; (4) is based on a Faunalytics-provided Q&A written-response interview and financial reports [27] and an interview with the founder [28]; and (5) is only a passing mention and doesn't cover the subject of the company (as best I can tell with no full preview of the pages). Platonk (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platonk Thanks for explaining. Yes, I was referring to the sources I listed, not to the article. The refs in article do not prove notability, I think. I haven't worked my sources 1-5 into it.

You seem to be arguing that we need tertiary sources, not secondary ones, for notability. Not so. WP:GNG requires secondary sources as defined by WP:SECONDARY (linked at GNG): A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. 1, 4 and 5 are all secondary on that definition, since all have evaluation and synthesis and are one step removed from Faunalytics (two in the case of (5)).

4 and 5 are somewhat tertiary since they cite independent secondary sources.

I anticipate you might argue that 1, 4 or 5 are unreliable, next. Just note that not citing sources, like (1), does not imply unreliability. All the claims made in the secondary part of (1), they can have easily verified with their own eyes (e.g. what kind or reports Faunalytics has published). (4), the Animal Charity Evaluators review, verified some info such as financial data with sources independent of Faunalytics, they write, but again, that is not necessary for being secondary or reliable. They are reliable and secondary. They provide literally 12 pages of evaluation. (5), the book about animal activism by Elizabeth Cherry from 2016, mentions Faunalytics only in the sections I quoted above, but, in my view, constitutes significant coverage. Cherry is two steps removed from Faunalytics since the author discusses (the impact of) Faunalytics based on interviews with people working at other charities. I don't have the book either, I got the quotes from the Google Books preview. Published by a reliable publisher (Routledge).‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 18:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trimton There is no argument for needing tertiary sources by Platonk or anyone else. I think that is a misunderstanding on your part. Also, Platonk and I have noted that as soon as a source engages in interview and/or quotations - these are not usually considered secondary or independent sources because the relevant material comes from an employee or executive of the company.

Additionally, routine information such as financials, financing, number of employees, etc. does not indicate notability. This is emphasized in WP:ORG, and more specifically emphasized in WP:ORGDEPTH. I would appreciate it if you would read ORGDEPTH, because you seem to be ignoring it.

Platonk brought up ORGDEPTH right away in reference to the links you added to thIS AfD. And I agree with their assessment. For example, the Non-Profit Chronicles source, your number one, titles the article "Faunalytics..."

However, the opening paragraphs generally discuss American meat consumption and health warnings. Then the company Faunalytics is very briefly described and is not in-depth or significant coverage. In that source, this is followed by interviews of company executives, Che Green and Caryn Ginsberg, which takes up most of the page.

And the topics discussed by the executives are about different types of advocacy - not the company. Even if they did discuss the company in more detail, that would be considered a primary source because they are connected to the company (See ORGDEPTH). Moreover, it appears this source generally engages in advocacy for non-profits. So I question its reliability anyway. For example, it is not the New York Times or the Washington Post.

It seems we all agree that your next two sources are not acceptable for the reasons stated above. Your fourth source, Animal Charity Evaluators appears to me to be unacceptable. This is because all their critiques, evaluations, and conclusions are based on information supplied by Faunalytics. To see what I mean, here is the research page posted by Animal Charity Evaluators. Also, Platonk posted a couple of documents that support this view [29], [30].

Finally, I have to agree that your book source, your number 5, indicates only passing mentions, and yes, this is only a book preview. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn I didn't engage with WP:ORGDEPTH because it isn't required for notability. To cite WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

So to delete, you have to show that Faunalytics fails both GNG and ORGDEPTH, or meets something in What Wikipedia is Not. have you done that?

---->what this debate comes down to, it seems, is that you say 1 and 5 arent substantial coverage, which would fail both GNG and ORGDEPTH. I disagree.

If I am correct on that, then Faunalytics passes GNG (not sure about orgdepth, but as i showed, that's not necessary). You haven't refuted my point that 1,4,5 are WP:SECONDARY since they do synthesis and evaluation. I agree that Platonk did not demand tertiary sources. Platonk just seemed to suggest that sources can't contribute to notability if they rely on primary sources, when Platonk said "(4) is based on a Faunalytics-provided Q&A written-response interview and financial reports". But I don't know why Platonk took issue with (4) using interviews as sources, since they didn't say what exactly is wrong with that. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 08:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are trying to emphasize that sources 1 and 4 are secondary, and I have shown they are not. I don't need to repeat myself. I provided an in-depth analysis of those sources above. Additionally, ORGDEPTH is notability criteria and is required for notability. As you noted SNGs are valid notability criteria.

WP:ORG (also WP:CORP) is an SNG which is "...the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right." If a source fails ORGDEPTH it fails notability. WP:ORG and ORGDEPTH exist specifically because GNG can be sidestepped when dealing with organizations.

Also, your first source fails GNG as well as ORGCRITE and SIRS. The interview with company executives make that a primary source that is not independent of the company. It was already stated above "Per NCORP, " Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: corporate annual or financial reports, ... interviews by executives."

The first part of that source discusses subjects that are general and not specifically Faunalytics. Although the title of the article is Faunalytics, it is not significantly about Faunalytics. I already explained this above.

The fourth source, I have explained, is based on information provided by Faunalytics. This again makes that document not independent of the company. That is a GNG issue as well as ORGCRITE, SIRS and ORGDEPTH issue. The fifth source, when I say it is not significant coverage means that it also fails GNG.

And once again, if a topic fails WP:ORG, ORDEPTH, ORGCRITE or SIRS then it fails notability. This is because people play the "reliable source" game or the "secondary" game. Additionally, above I already stated sources "...are not...considered secondary or independent sources because the relevant material comes from an employee or executive of the company." This discounts GNG as well as ORG.

The only secondary source I am seeing is the book. To claim the other sources are secondary is misleading. To claim the first source is significant coverage is misleading. Regarding the book, I have deemed this is passing mention and Platonk has said the same thing.

Significant coverage is a GNG issue as well as a ORGCRITE, SIRS, and ORGDEPTH issue. Being a secondary source, or even a "reliable source", is not the only criteria that determines notability. And if you want to argue the book (source #5) is significant coverage that is still not enough for notability. Multiple independent secondary sources are required for notability. But I do not agree the book is significant coverage ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the point I have been making has not been understood from the outset. GNG states "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." So here, in the GNG criteria is the necessity of being independent of the subject.

Material garnered only from the company (as the only source), or interviews with executives or employees, demonstrate the lack of independence of the source. Even GNG says, " Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it..."

Since it seems there is a need to be specific here - the company or executives or employees providing the only material about the topic (the company) are works produced by those who are affiliated with the company.

It could also be said senior executives are essentially the company and information in the form of interviews, quotes, and data - are works produced by the company. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To further support this angle: per WP:ORGIND, "Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." I repeat for emphasis, clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Platonk (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources brought above, this is an in-depth discussion of research by Faunalytics and the 2021 book "Vegetarian and Vegan Diets: Your Questions Answered" by Alice Richer at a respectable publisher refers to Faunalytics and its research throughout. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first offering fails RS because it is an opinion piece and doesn't rate being a citation in an article let alone contributing towards notability. Your second offering fails CORPDEPTH because the author only cites findings in Faunalytics-authored reports to support whatever she is writing about in her book, but doesn't cover the topic of Faunalytics itself as a company in any depth — merely introducing it as a "nonprofit market research organization" and "dedicated to helping animals". Platonk (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And there is much more, for example Culture and Activism: Animal Rights in France and the United States, Elizabeth Cherry, 2016 at Taylor & Francis. This book discusses Faunalytics at even more length. This nomination is so weak that it is best withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per discussion and then a Keep per gidonb. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this article is notable, but it definitely needs cleanup.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Miller (sports presenter)

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

There are indications of notability, but mainly that he worked with notable people. I couldn't establish that he passes the threshold or that there is an ATD. Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Efficiency Center

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

I couldn't establish that it is notable enough for a standalone article, nor that merge/redirect to the university, or anywhere else, is useful. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Block (Milwaukee Bucks)

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of 2021 NBA Finals. A standlone page with a title that is WP:RECENTISM fandom at this point, and mostly using a single play as a WP:COATRACK to rehash a game and a series already covered by the Finals page. Generic, fabricated term is not suitable as a redirect either. WP:TOOSOON to determine the legacy of this one play. —Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LeBron James's block of Andre Iguidala in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals has it's own article.—Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that other articles exist is not a valid argument in AFD debates. And even so, a Google search of "The Block" "Giannis Antetokounmpo" only has about 20% of the results of a similar search of "The Block" "LeBron James". And most of the first page of results on the Antetokounmpo search are routine coverage that simply describe this blockas any other block (e.g. the first two results are "a video... showing every angle of the block." and "explained how he was able to react so quickly and get the block.") Frank Anchor^Talk 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of this content is already found in 2021 NBA Finals and very little reliable non-routine coverage exists on this block. Frank Anchor^Talk 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete As non-notable content fork. Not much can be written about the block itself anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone feels there is content here worth merging to another article, please log a request at WP:REFUND for it to be restored under a redirect. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents in the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict

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

WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Combining a group of conflicts with different origins and coalitions into one list as if people take sides in this "proxy conflict" and not e.g. fight against IS terrorism, or make money from delivering arms without care for which side they are supporting. Many of the entries here are unsourced or "allegedly" or "according to a charity" or similar, and don't necessarily give an accurate indication of the positions of the groups in the conflict. And with the complete lack of prose, this page also violates WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict which covers much of the same ground in its large section listing the involved parties. This is clearly a big topic per the navigational template {{Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict}}. As the page in question has hundreds of sources, the most relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI, as the main author to this article, say that we could extensively improve. Why is there need to merge? I mean, the Iraq War has its own belligerency page. Is mine not notable. Because it surely is with 513 sources.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 01:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sakiv (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author had added a synth of conflicts to the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict template which I removed describing his edits as a synth of unrelated conflicts. The article lists the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and Tigary as being related, but there is no evidence this is part of the proxy conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found evidence of Nagorno Karabkah being part of the Russia-Turkey conflict (https://globalriskinsights.com/2020/11/violence-in-nagorno-karabakh-a-new-proxy-war-in-the-south-caucasus/), but this conflict is usually considered to be part of Iran-Saudi's conflcts. As for Tigray, I removed it.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 21:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet this has nothing to do with Iran and Saudi Arabia. You said yourself, it is between Russia and Turkey. The article has nothing to do with Iran and Saudi Arabia's own conflict. And considered by whom? This is a some people say argument. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but if you look at the article, there is a source that Saudi Arabia supports Azerbaijan(backs territorial integrity), and Iran allegedly gave weapons to Armenia, along with Russia. So yes it is includedMausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 22:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to another source, not the article you provided in this Afd in response to my vote. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these proxy-conflict articles are magnets for WP:SYNTH. Many of the sources are two or three degrees removed from any mention of a proxy conflict. This should be deleted with prejudice. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove synth just remove the synth why delete the article 168.228.234.18 (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darwen Library Theatre

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability, and I am not convinced there is a feasible ATD, although merge/redirect to Darwen Library is a possibility. Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any indication of notability of this 200-seat theatre. Should be merged into the library's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This does not prevent anyone from looking to merge the article based on a consensus on the talk page (or pursuant to WP:BB). Stifle (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths and violence at the Cecil Hotel

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

Sources discuss the excessive number of deaths at the hotel, but none of them actually go through and enumerate them all. Cecil Hotel (Los Angeles)#Reputation for violence, suicide and murder is a rather detailed section already. Nitpick: All the entries are deaths, not "violence", which could mean a lot of things. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete in the nomination, which seems to be mainly some nitpicking. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nearly 100 years now and this list is not notable to this day. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A known reputation that forms part of the hotel's notability does not justify a separate list of otherwise non-notable news incidents. WP is not a news site or a memorial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cecil Hotel (Los Angeles)#Reputation for violence, suicide and murder. The section is structured enough like a list to make a suitable redirect target for the name. BD2412 T 19:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew; I don't see any good reason to delete this list. It seems to meet WP:NLIST, given that the hotel's history of violence is often discussed "as a group or set." And there seem to be enough individual instances to justify a separate list article instead of shoving them all into the main article. Mlb96 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons stated by the other two. With all due respect to Clarityfiend, I'm just not convinced by their argument. Helen(💬📖) 23:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there is sufficient coverage here to pass WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of the deaths to justify a standalone article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cecil Hotel (Los Angeles). Fits naturally as a part of that article, which isn't overlong. Why spin it off? Sandstein 11:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Campbell (artist)

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

GNG Fail. Note that "Shane Campbell Gallery" in Chicago is not the same person. --- Possibly ☎ 05:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, and he's also not Shane Campbell (born Manchester, New Hampshire in 1964), a folk artist who actually might be notable. Vexations (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Mueller

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

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His Google Scholar profile shows too few citations for WP:PROF#C1, one self-published book with no reviews that I can find isn't going to pass WP:AUTHOR, and I can find no other suggestion of notability. That all said, copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. So although I tend to agree with the nominator in this case, I think a trout may still be due. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with Eppstein this does not pass PROF. I don't see SIGCOV here either.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:NPROF C1, a single book is thin for WP:NAUTHOR even if it had reviews; no other signs of notability. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to a lack of independent, secondary sources that are not primarily reprints or translations of the article subject. RL0919 (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Appeal of 7 June 2020

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

This was created and edited by a couple of socks that were promotiing the Prix Versailles. It amounts to a manifesto page. The first three refs are in excellent publications, but they seem to all be opinion pages reprinting the manifesto. I don't think enough independent RS exist to support notability. --- Possibly ☎ 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Possibly could you find any independent RS? I couldn't. The COI discussion about Prix Versailles is here. TSventon (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as above. No independant secondary sources. — Jules* ^Talk 14:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added 6 new independent RS. I believe the topic is notable. 2A01:CB09:B007:FBBC:DCCD:D4DA:CF32:B8E5 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those. None are RS; they are all just reprints of the manifesto. The result of a good Public relations campaign. Also, the French IP has two edits and some of the sources added have access dates going back to 2020, meaning there's a good chance they are related to our Prix Versailles sock ring. --- Possibly ☎ 20:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. All those media are commenting this Appeal/manifesto; that seems normal due to the quality of the signatories. 2A01:CB09:B007:FBBC:EE:92E0:509A:7DF (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian E. Elger

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

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With six publications up into four-digit citations on His Google Scholar profile, he easily passes WP:PROF#C1. And copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, These all articles created by the same editor linked to, what I believe to be a paid accounts scheme. I opened a SPI on them. They are all linked to the Federal University of Sergipe. As I'm, also, an editor at the pt.WP their editing pattern caught my attention. I didn't mean to abuse the AfD. I just checked all their contributions and tried to assess the ones that, in my view, doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. As you seem to have much more expertise then me, would you be willing to check their contributions and see if there are any other articles that doesn't meet the notability criteria? Regards. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With only 84,452 citations, and an h-index of 144, he hasn't reached 100,000 citations yet though it is easy to project that he will eventually. Easily passes PROF-1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The guy has over 1000 articles indexed by Scopus and an h-index of 114... JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:PROF. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the highly cited articles are also highly coauthored, but even removing these there appears to be plenty for WP:NPROF C1. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for AfD; this article leaves me a bit concerned about that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. and please @SirEdimon: stop wasting peoples time. --hroest 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As some of the AfD's in this batch have been trending to "delete" (currently this, this, this, and this) or at least equivocal (like here), it looks like the effort has quite possibly found articles that the encyclopedia shouldn't be hosting. So, I wouldn't say that our time is being wasted. Though a more thorough WP:BEFORE might have sifted out some obvious keeps, I do have to admit that WP:PROF is one guideline that takes a bit of getting used to. It asks for articles to be evaluated using kinds of evidence with which even experienced editors are often unfamiliar. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - XOR'easter and Hannes Röst As I stated here on this AfD and here. These are all articles created by the same account which I believe is linked to a sock/meat/undisclosed paid scheme. They are all linked to the Federal University of Sergipe, a university in Brazil. As I'm an editor at the Pt.WP and here on en.WP I've tried to track them down and see which articles created by them are non-notable or even spam. Of course, my knowledge on WP:PROF proved a little fault (despite the article that really don't pass WP:PROF), but I'm acting in good faith. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 04:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hillsong Church. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong International Leadership College

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

Does not, and will not, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations.

Hillsong College is the training program of Hillsong Church. Since the creation of the article a decade and a half ago, there has not emerged sufficient coverage in reputable independent sources (press releases from Hillsong Church do not count) to justify its retention. There are, to be sure, occasional passing references in news media -- for example, there was a recent flurry of articles about a graduate of Hillsong College who died of COVID-19 after publicly deriding the vaccine -- but the overwhelming majority of news coverage tends to be either plainly tangential (as in the previous example) or focused on Hillsong Church (with the "college" merely an afterthought).

Under the general notability guidelines, Hillsong College does not have much of a chance. If regarded as a college or university, it is true that "[m]ost independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.) However, I have to question that point as well: institutions of higher education in Australia are regulated by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. Hillsong College is "accredited" by the Australian Skills Quality Authority, which regulates vocational education in Australia. I can think of no similar training program with a Wikipedia page -- there are "vocational education" organizations with Wikipedia pages, though most of those are closer to polytechnic institutes and overlap heavily with other realms of higher education -- the closest that I can think of in terms of specialization is Hamburger University, and even then there are any number of reliable sources from which to choose. Hillsong College has none.

The article itself has changed little since its creation: unsourced, with occasional bursts of enthusiasm from new editors (some of whom may have been affiliated with Hillsong), reverts of the most egregious promotional material, and some occasional small grammar edits. Nobody has found a single reliable source on the subject despite the fact that the article's been online since 2007. I suggest deletion and a redirect to Hillsong Church. RexSueciae (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or prune down and Merge/Redirect to Hillsong Church. It is not notable alone. --Bduke (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hillsong Church. Not notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - though I disagree with the conjoined premise that it, "Does not, and will not, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations." Does not? Sure. Will not? Ever? Disagree. Plenty of things that weren't notable last week are this week. That said, such an argument is usually used to suggest salting a title and the nominator certainly hasn't suggested that here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not Redirect this training program is not strong enough to require a link. This appears to be one of many weak subarticles all of which are promotional-and contain fair use image copyvios. ClemRutter (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:ATD doesn't let you delete if an appropriate redirect is available (as it is here). Deus et lex (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hillsong Church--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect First, did anyone actually do WP:BEFORE. I found a number of mentions in relation to Lenz: https://ministrywatch.com/former-staff-members-say-hillsong-pastors-fund-lavish-lifestyles-with-member-gifts/ https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/ex-hillsong-members-accuse-church-of-exploitation-homophobia/ https://religionnews.com/2021/01/05/hillsong-dallas-lead-pastors-who-helped-plant-nyc-location-with-carl-lentz-resign/ and https://www.christianpost.com/news/hillsong-dallas-lead-pastors-resign-after-15-years-with-ministry.html which are not enough to support an article, and I found this attack blog: https://www.apprising.org/2014/05/13/homosexuality-removed-from-hillsong-college-student-handbook/. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Yes, I did look into the subject before I nominated this article. Nobody contests that Hillsong Church or Carl Lentz are notable, and they've got their own articles already. So far, though, I have been utterly unable to find any source on Hillsong College that goes beyond a mere "trivial mention". RexSueciae (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to impune your efforts. I did not read that you had made a search so that was a bad assumption on my part. I already noted that the incidents in relation to Lentz were passing mentions, and that is the reason I hedged my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, no worries mate. RexSueciae (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hilsong Church, while also only keeping what is well sourced and justified based on the needs of that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient evidence of an unusual level of influence in his academic field, and lacking independent sources for general notability. RL0919 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sherif Karama

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

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be only an assistant professor (I guess because MD PhD takes a long time and he is still only a few years out from the PhD part) but I think His Google Scholar profile has enough citations for WP:PROF#C1. And copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. MD PhD are often are practicing doctors, so it takes a while, but he passes NPROF-1 with his citation record (h-index of 39, 19 works with over 100 citations).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as I didn't realized just how ridiculous neurology citations are. Must be all that brain power, they have all the lit in mind.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Karama works at the interface of clinical genetics and neurology, both of which have extremely high citation rates -- there are people with bachelor's working as techs who have h-indices over 20. I am running the Scopus citation metrics now but I strongly suspect he will come out well below the median among his hundreds of coauthors. Pinging David Eppstein and Eostrix in case they want to look into this further as well. JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at the 73 coauthors (with ≥20 papers) just from Karama's most recent two publications, I'm getting an average citation count of 13685 (median 8442) and h-index of 46 (median 44). This is compared to Karama's metrics of 3679 citations and h-index of 32. I would very strongly discourage using his citation profile as evidence of meeting C1. JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject has one highly cited but highly coauthored paper that he is first author on. Middle author on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF C1; no other signs of notability. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. subject is an assistant professor which is generally WP:TOOSOON except in extraordinary circumstances which are not given here. There are only two last author publications yet out from this group and four reasonably cited first author publications. No major awards or recognitions. --hroest 14:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as TOOSOON. Like I said above, neurology is a ridiculously well-cited field (case in point: this postdoc with 2668 total citations, 39 papers, and h-index of 18, whose top 5 papers have 464, 442, 400, 366, and 129 citations; or this PhD student with 882 total citations, 35 papers, and h-index of 17, with top papers at 209, 69, 62, 50, and 45 citations). Here are the Scopus citation metrics for 328 of his coauthors with 30+ papers (postdocs and PhD students with <50 papers removed), collected from all of his publications with fewer than 25 authors, AND the 5 or so most recent mega-collab papers:

Total citations: average: 11869, median: 5418, Karama: 3679. Total papers: avg: 195, med: 118, K: 85. h-index: avg: 44, med: 37, K: 32. Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 1094, med: 514, K: 426. 2nd: avg: 644, med: 404, K: 150. 3rd: avg: 504, med: 289, K: 147. 4th: avg: 413, med: 245, K: 140. 5th: avg: 353, med: 212, K: 130. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colm McDonald

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

The article doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His Google Scholar profile shows an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. And copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes NPROF-1 with an h-index of 66 (google scholar).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although many of the highly cited papers are also highly coauthored, I'm seeing enough first/last authored papers that are highly cited that I think it passes WP:NPROF C1. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything stated above. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep not a as clear cut as it seems on the first glance. While there are many co-authored publications, there are also a sufficient number of first author pubs with high citation count. Still, this is within a high citation field and most of his papers are with 20-50 authors, making it hard to identify individual contributions. --hroest 14:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked at the 151 coauthors with ≥25 papers from the 73 papers with ≤25 authors out of his most recent 125 papers (whew!). He is well above the average in Scopus citation metrics:

Total citations: average: 10003, median: 2958, McDonald: 17453. Total papers: avg: 160, med: 91, M: 245. h-index: avg: 38, med: 26, M: 57. Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 1082, med: 420, M: 4062. 2nd: avg: 523, med: 248, M: 1262. 3rd: avg: 389, med: 215, M: 592. 4th: avg: 313, med: 156, M: 464. 5th: avg: 271, med: 131, M: 449.

The coauthor values do skew low due to the paper cutoff and publication recency likely catching a lot of postdocs and students; however, I think his profile is robust enough to maintain exception over his peers even if I did a true "average professor" test. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Baldomero Espina Barrio

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

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His Google Scholar profile shows two publications with over 100 citations, but one of them is a book by someone else. Discounting that, one highly-cited publication is probably not enough. That all said, copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. So although I tend to agree with the nominator in this case, I think a trout may still be due. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject appears to have one somewhat influential book, but no other notability is apparent. Looks like a WP:BLP1E. If the book meets WP:BOOKCRIT, then redirecting to an article on the book could be an alternative to deletion. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the Revista Euroamericana de Antropología sufficiently high-profile such that being its editor-in-chief qualifies for WP:PROF#C8? I'm guessing not, but I'd like to hear further opinions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I confess that I missed that statement from the article. (I was distracted by the malformed ref). But the criterion asks for a "major, well-established" journal. I think that a journal that appears to have been started in approx. 2016 fails the "well-established" part. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Roberto de Lima Andrade

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

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No evidence of notability; searching Google Scholar for author:jr-de-lima-andrade found what look like his publications, but without enough citations to justify WP:PROF#C1. "Director General of the School of Public Administration and Management of the State of Sergipe" might make a claim to #C6 if that were a significant standalone institute, but I can barely verify that the "Escola de Administração Pública e Gestão Governamental de Sergipe" exists, and I doubt "Secretary of State for Tourism of Sergipe" passes WP:NPOL. That all said, copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. So although I tend to agree with the nominator in this case, I think a trout may still be due. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Nomination withdrawn". (non-admin closure) SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 03:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Caskey

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

Article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Two of the references are dead and the other refs only mention her. No in-depth coverage from WP:RS or WP:IS. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a high-citation field but despite that her citation record (three publications with over 500 cites on Google scholar, many more with over 200) looks strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. And there's in-depth sourcing available to make a verifiable article at pages like [73] — it's not independent but it doesn't need to be for WP:PROF-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur that the citation record evident on google scholar shows this is strong enough for NPROF-1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said, seems to meet WP:NPROF. Also, WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein NHCLS (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked and the article should be kept, also as per David Eppstein Dorota Uchis (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanehi

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards. The 2011 census handbook for the district doesn't list a Dhanehi anywhere, although it does list the Mawai mentioned in the article as a separate village. I can find it on the map, but the map in the census handbook (p. 365) seems to indicate that this spot falls within the village of Mawai, or possibly the neighboring village of Sareni instead. I assume that Dhanehi is merely a hamlet within one of those two villages, and thus has no official recognition that WP:GEO requires. A cursory web search also turns up nothing except a "Sarai Dhanehi" in Faizabad district, and the usual auto-generated "Weather in X" pages, which doesn't indicate that it meets WP:GNG either. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless someone can show that this place has a legal recognition. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having searched the official and unofficial websites for the 2011 Census of India, there's no village in Rae Bareli district with even a similar-sounding name to this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Col de Chermotane

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

Article is about seemingly unimportant valley and has no sources other than one single topographical map. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:GEOLAND is a bit unclear on this, but there are many small stubs in Category:Mountain_passes_of_Switzerland. For this one Google has 119 hits and more than 10 books mention it, so it would lean keep. --hroest 19:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. The text indicates this feature is a significant pass in the Alps, and WP:NOTCLEANUP also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girisch Nair

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

i think its clearly Promotional article. and fail GNG Iamfarzan (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While potentially eligible for soft deletion, due to the promotional tone, likely a soft-delete would eventually be contested and we'd be back at square one anyways. Relisting for a further 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biographical article whose content (most of which is a close paraphrase of this business profile post) predominantly describes and references the activities of the subject's company, along with some text about a film which was co-produced by another of his companies. I am not seeing evidence that the individual has attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails any notability criteria. There are promotional company tones and clearly what sources that are provided are more company related. In fact, short of a job resume, this is only a pseudo biography.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Warren Jr.

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

Not really seeing how this possibly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia is not news. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG to significant in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources over some time. The coverage was international, both local American coverage and coverage in the UK (including a Channel 4 documentary).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sources provide any presumptions to indicate that the subject merits its own article. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and this subject was just part of a slow news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS.––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not news cycle, as there is coverage from 2011, coverage from 2013 (and coverage of the coverage: The Man with the 10-Stone Testicles: a triumph of gross-out TV [74]), and coverage from 2014 [75]. Oh, and he was the subject of television shows in the UK and in the US (TLC: The Man with the 132-lb. Scrotum [76]).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might just close this as a speedy keep if that's alright with you, Eostrix. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: not a problem, saves time all around, and I've done so myself (on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine DiMasi where I got things wrong). There are instructions at WP:CLOSEAFD (Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)) for the technical motions you need to make.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Steal (basketball)

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

Single play from a basketball game that has not (at least as of yet) gained notability from outside sources. While this article is well sourced, all but one of these sources are routine coverage of the 2021 NBA Finals and not specific to this play. The one posted source that does go into more detail about the play only quotes Giannis Antetokounmpo calling this play a “big-time steal” Hardly the significant coverage required for a play to have its own article. A google search of “The Steal” 2021 NBA Finals shows very little coverage outside of routine coverage of the steal sealing game 5. No significance beyond this game is shown in any articles (even after the Bucks won the series) and only one opinion piece uses the term “The Steal.” Frank Anchor^Talk 02:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete It's WP:RECENTISM fandom at this point, and mostly using a single play as a WP:COATRACK to rehash the game in series already covered by 2021 NBA Finals. Generic, fabricated term is not suitable as a redirect either.—Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LeBron James's block of Andre Iguidala in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals has it's own article.—Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that other articles exist is not a valid argument in AFD debates. And even so, a Google search of "The Steal" "Jrue Holiday" only has about 10% of the results of a similar search of "The Block" "LeBron James". And most of the first page of results on the "The Steal" search are routine coverage that simply describe this steal as any other steal (e.g. "Jrue Holiday for the steal." and "Holiday told reporters about the steal.") Frank Anchor^Talk 14:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary content fork. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whether to redirect and where to is an editorial decision. Sandstein 11:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Fox

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK and a WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything besides a single review [77]. Couldn't find any information on the publisher. Previous AfD was about a different subject. Isabelle ^🔔 01:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 01:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The ForeWord review was done through their paid service, so it's not considered to be usable as far as notability giving goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and return back to a Zoids redirect. There's just nothing out there to show that this book passes NBOOK. It looks to have gone the same route as most indie or self-published books have gone - it was released, but gained no attention in places that Wikipedia would see as usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Casino Control Commission

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

No sign of notability or significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary: WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. Bash7oven (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SIGCOV. I found several news articles detailing the commission's work: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable government agency. Meets WP:SIGCOV KidAd • SPEAK 02:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Rose

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable straight to DVD production. Does not seem to have received any professional reviews. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, has at least one professional review, at Dread Central (a WP:RS), [[84]] Donaldd23 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't remember if I missed that one when I was searching or if I saw it and didn't realise that it was a professional review. That said, if that is all we can find then I still think this is a delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources review listed above by Donaldd23. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFILM requires more than just one review. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We only have one review, our guidelines require multiple reviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials. Selective merging of content is encouraged here. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummi Hafilda Ali

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

minor involvement in 1998 legal case. I don't think this meets our requirements for BLPO. I see no point in redirecting, as he;s not even mentioned in the major article (and I see so problem there also about including irrelevnt detail) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DGG, what sources did you look at during WP:BEFORE? I'm seeing tons of English-langauge coverage revolving around her involvement in politics, as you say mostly related to the 1998 legal case but also more recent activities, including defamation cases, candidacies, etc. She has seemingly stayed in the news until 2015 at least, which makes me wonder about the existence of extensive non-English Malaysian sources. The way she is discussed, including in the academic source I looked at, suggest she is widely perceived as an important Malaysian public figure. Here's some sources I looked at: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5, opinion, but seemingly useful context) (6) (7) Among others from The Star (Malaysia)... looks like other coverage in Sinar Harian as well, although I didn't dig deep into Google Translating much of that. Suriname0 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I do not know how to evaluate these sources. Nor can I figure out how to write an article that would meet the BLP requirements, except that the present article does not. . DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's tricky without more context. I left a note on WikiProject Malaysia. Suriname0 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hopefully allow for further analysis of the sourcing and improvement to the article. As the article stands, my personal view is that it is a BLP violation, so I'm not happy to close as a weak no consensus or similar. Hopefully either the article can be improved based off these sources (once they are analyzed for reliability and significance), or alternatively a consensus forms to take some other affirmative action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Selective Merge and Redirect Based on my research in English-language sources (and review of and revisions to the article), it has been difficult to find much encyclopedic content that is more than WP:NOTSCANDAL about Ali or related to her various allegations against a variety of other people, which raises WP:BLP concerns, e.g. it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. While independent and reliable sources suggest she had a major role in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials, due to making allegations that were key to the prosecution (e.g. CBS News, CNN/AsiaWeek, NYT, BBC News, The Guardian), (and then later retracting them, e.g. BBC News), it appears that her primary means of remaining high-profile since then is by continuing to make allegations against other people, or to have allegations raised against her, but WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP weigh against inclusion of this content. Information from independent and reliable sources about her role in the trial could be merged into the article about the trial, and a redirect may be appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC) !vote and comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a Merge and Redirect. If someone wanted to tackle the challenge of writing a bio about her more recent activities without violating WP:BLP, they're welcome to do so. Suriname0 (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Szenberg

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

Fails WP:PROF. Non-notable academic. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof and WP:Author. Inadequate reasons given for nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure of WP:PROF#C1 (citations don't look high) but it doesn't matter: he passes #C8 (editor-in-chief of notable journal) and also WP:AUTHOR (multiple published reviews of his books, easily found for instance on JSTOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per PROF-8 as editor of The American Economist. There is also a prize named after him.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NPROF#8, probably a weak case of NPROF#1. --hroest 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to easily pass WP:GNG. Also passed WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SARS Network

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

This entire article might be original research. The article is not written in an encyclopedic way but more like an essay. It uses some sources that only tangentially relate to the subject and much of the text seems to be unsourced. Some parts that are sourced seem to be plagiarized such as the sentences "Despite this estimate..." and "Instead, initial seeding...". The user who wrote the article did so in May 2014 and has not done anything else. This article was briefly discussed at the Medicine WikiProject here, where two other users believed it was original research and a coatrack article. When searching for "SARS network", most results pertain to networks of people or organizations that collaborated to study or respond to SARS and secondarily to some stuff involving music. Velayinosu (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be an essay with substantial copy-and-pasting from its sources. The sentences mentioned in the nomination were lifted from here; "One of the striking features..." was lifted from here. So was the rest of the paragraph after "patients are infectious only after they exhibit symptoms". Overall, the article starts with vague generalities about network theory and segues into plagiarism. Nor is the choice of title very good. The term "SARS network" might better refer to the network of people who worked to identify its source (see, e.g., this Science story from 2003). But even that sense is rare. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prosetta

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

I'm not sure whether this company is notable enough for an article. They solely conduct research and do not produce or sell any anything, so their revenue comes exclusively through investments and partnerships, but it isn't clear if their research has contributed to anything notable. Most secondary sources seem to be standard business press releases of their activities or company listings/databases, and the company has only rarely been mentioned independently. Their research also has a "too good to be true" kind of thing going on with some questionable premises, which may turn out to be legitimate but for the time being seem fringe and like every startup promoting the next best thing. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On a wiki-policy level, this does not have significant coverage in secondary sources, it only has passing mention in a very small handful of sources, many of which are promotional and not independent of the company, which is also a requirement of GNG. So it easily fails GNG. On a scientific level, this drug is no different from the many other small molecule drugs developed around COVID. 99% will fail in pre-clinicals. 99.9% will fail by the time RCTs come back. So this article very likely does not have a future. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, as someone who got a PhD developing antivirals and vaccines against emerging pathogens.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS. Lacks enough significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Probably too soon for its own article at this time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the comments above - no significant coverage indicating notability of the company.--Chartwind (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] riservati, GoalSicilia-Tutti i diritti (2020-10-12). "Ex Trapani: il giovane Valenti vola in Toscana". GoalSicilia.it - Le squadre del calcio in Sicilia e non solo... (in Italian). Retrieved 2021-07-26.

[2] Redazione (2020-10-30). "L'ex Primavera del Trapani positivo al coronavirus". Trapani Granata (in Italian). Retrieved 2021-07-26.

[3] Redazione (2020-05-09). "Primavera Trapani, con Valenti tanta velocità in attacco". Trapani Granata (in Italian). Retrieved 2021-07-26.

[4] "Che Green spends lots of time thinking about how to improve advocacy on behalf of animals. Green, who is 43, is the founder and executive director of Faunalytics, a research organization that is intended to help animal advocates become more effective. Begun in 2000, Faunalytics does original research, conducts surveys and impact evaluations in partnership with animal protection groups, and maintains a curated library of more than 4,000 studies. It also conducts an annual survey called the Animal Tracker, which is the only longitudinal survey devoted to animal issues."

[5] 47: "Amber did not cite specific studies, but said she had read reports from Faunalytics that found that people who become vegetarian(...)"
pages 117-118: "Perhaps the strongest embodiment of this logic of practicality in activists' learning processes comes from Faunalytics (known as the Humane Research Council until 2015). Informed by corporate-driven market research, Faunalytics conducts focus groups with non-activists to find the best ways for annual rights SMOs to reach their target audiences. Demonstrating this move towards practicality, Heidi described the importance of Faunalytics's work: (...)"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]