Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< November 09 November 11 >

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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kam Parker

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

Only one source on this page is about the subject, the rest are just mentioning his writing credits on other artists' releases and I don't even know if those are all reliable. The page doesn't even mention his Grammy nomination for writing on Justin Bieber's Justice. Beyond that, the closest I can find is this barebones article about a legal claim against Usher. Doesn't pass GNG, doesn't appear to pass WP:COMPOSER. Doesn't appear to be sufficiently tied to any one subject to have a clear redirect target. QuietHere (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi International Film Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. No major press coverage since 2012. Rushtheeditor (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, per nominator, and while skimming through the article, the sources only state about the first annual Film Festival. Sarrail (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Game (band)

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

An unsourced article in 2007, I could not find any sources myself to add except for once source from Creative Loafing that simply mentions the drummer and guitarist played with a new band [6]. Non-notable band. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Books International

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

A non-notable charitable book-selling website that appears to have closed down in 2016 or thereabouts. The sources cited in the article are largely blogs and there aren't any reliable secondary sources (noting that some of the links are dead, but I have checked archived versions). Its advertisements won awards. A WP:BEFORE search has not identified any additional reliable secondary sources (although admittedly it's tricky to search for a company called "Good Books International"; I've tried various search term combos including with Oxfam and the creator Jane Cherrington). I did find an article on The Big Idea which reads like a press release but that's about it. I also found another link which seemed promotional, and including it in the text prevented me from actually putting the AfD through Twinkle (as it appears on the WP:BLACKLIST), so evidently that isn't any help. All up, the article doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG threshold, nor WP:SIRS. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaka: A Story of Bonds and Wounds

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

Article in a forthcoming anime tv series due for release in 2023. What we have at the moment is coverage of an announcement that it is to be released, and a teaser/trailer. What we don’t have is in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. I think this should be draftified until the time comes (next year?) when notability can be determined. Mccapra (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

2022 California Proposition 29

edit

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


2022 California Proposition 29 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed propositions are rarely notable, and nothing about this one indicates anything different. Onel5969 TT me 22:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If this is the rationale to be used against this proposition, then there are many California propositions in history that would stand to be deleted. The mere existence of a ballot measure is inherently notable. A look through this list shows that every 2020 California proposition has an article, including the failed ones, and especially Proposition 23, which is similar to the subject in question. For the previous decade, this list shows that every 2016 ballot proposition, including the failed ones, have their own article. The fact that there are failed propositions in history that do not have their own article does not signify that they are not notable, rather they more likely indicate that no one has volunteered to create them. If there are enough sources to build an article, which I am sure exists for Proposition 29, then it stands to reason that the ballot measure is notable, and the article only needs improvement instead of deletion. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but in the alternative, merge/redirect to an article or section about Proposition 29, 2020 California Proposition 23, 2018 California Proposition 8, and contextual information. That is, I would understand if consensus does not consider Proposition 29 notable by itself, but the group of related propositions over time is clearly notable with sustained reliable coverage. I wrote a brief section in another article: SEIU_United_Healthcare_Workers_West#Ballot_propositions. Micler (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unclear from the nomination what is the policy-/guideline-based reason for deletion. A simple search shows multiple items satisfying the GNG, especially given this was the third attempt to pass this proposition.[1][2][3][4][5] At $96 million, ($80+ million against) appears to have been one most highly spent propositions on the ballot.[6]

References

  1. ^ Zavala, Ashley (21 October 2022). "Proposition 29 explained: The 3rd push for rules in kidney dialysis clinics". KCRA.
  2. ^ "Kidney dialysis regs are on California ballots for the third election in a row". Washington Post. 4 November 2022.
  3. ^ Weber, Christopher (8 November 2022). "Election results: Early tallies show Calif. voters say no on Prop. 29 changes to dialysis clinics". The Desert Sun.
  4. ^ Summers, Adam (22 October 2022). "Proposition 29 is about union extortion, not dialysis care". Orange County Register.
  5. ^ Evans, Marissa; Mejia, Brittny (28 October 2022). "As Prop. 29 vote looms, dialysis patients brace for change". Los Angeles Times.
  6. ^ LeMee, Gabrielle LaMarr; Kambhampati, Sandhya; Lee, Iris (11 November 2022). "Track the money flowing into the kidney dialysis proposition". Los Angeles Times.
Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IRip

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

It looks like "iRip" was notable (from the late 90's to about 2014) in time to the popularity of ipods. In 2009 there was a legal kerfuffle with a text back from Steve Jobs. However, in my opinion, the ipod ripping software holds no notability today. The article has been tagged that it may not meet notability guidelines for products and services since September 2020. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. I find the deletion rationale confusing. With such logic, one may target the PET next. Pavlor (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even the nom's rationale for deletion concedes that the software was notable, and as notability is not temporary I don't see a valid rationale for deletion being presented. This plus the book references certainly seem to show notability by way of WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Really confusing reason for deletion. If once notable, than it is notable. Ipods are over, so is this tool. It's okay that there are not any news right now about this software. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking in retrospect "that notability does not fade" So was the software notable in "2009?" Reading the notability guidelines the presence or lack of support may or may not be an indicator of notability. (That sounds obtuse but you can have a notable person without any sources that are readily apparent; the opposite could be true as well where support might be plentiful but the subject is not meaningful. ) Perhaps the notability in 2009 came from "use" or much more likely that Steve Jobs "said change the name" in a one sentence text. In November 2009 The Little App Factory was forced by Apple to change the name of iPodRip to remove the trademark iPod. In a bid to gain leniency the developer sent an email to Steve Jobs and this email exchange was leaked garnering headlines due to Steve's succinct reply of "Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal." The software is now known as iRip. To quote Steve Jobs in the article it is "not that big of a deal" Is notability noise? I don't think the noise from a transitory headline (to generate readership (aka click-bait) is notable. Nevertheless, I hereby change my vote to Keep Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibbertigibbets: If you want to withdraw the nomination (given that nobody has suggested that it should be deleted), you can follow the instructions listed here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolga Akcayli

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an athlete and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing either WP:NATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim as an athlete is that he competed (but did not medal) in various international sporting events, and the notability claim as a filmmaker is that his film won an award at a minor film festival whose awards aren't instant notability clinchers -- but neither of those claims are sourced to any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him, and instead the article is referenced solely to a directory entry.
Even for the Olympics, simple presence in the competition is no longer an automatic notability freebie -- a person has to either medal at the Olympics or pass GNG on the sourcing to get an article on those grounds, and just having been present in a preliminary Olympic heat isn't enough all by itself anymore. And notability for filmmakers does not just indiscriminately accept every single award from every single film festival that exists, but only attaches to a relatively narrow tier of major, internationally prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, Venice or Toronto (but despite Nice's geographic proximity to Cannes, the film festival in Nice is not the same thing as Cannes, but is instead a separate, much less notable event.) And while the article has cited more footnotes in the past than it does now, they've still always been primary sources (IMDb, etc.) rather than reliable or notability-building ones, so there's no better-sourced older version of the article that can be reverted back to.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the subject from having to be referenced considerably better than this. There are also some likely WP:COI issues here, as the article has previously been edited by a user named "Tolgaria". Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to Delete. But if you would like to continue to work on this article in User or Draft space, contact me. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridoyanul Hoq

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

WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing WP:CREATIVE. This was created in draftspace and then got moved into mainspace by its creator without going through any sort of WP:AFC review -- but the only notability claim it attempts is that he and his film credits exist, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is entirely to directory entries and glancing namechecks of his existence in cast or crew lists on unreliable film blogs, with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in genuinely reliable sources shown at all.
Just having film credits is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to be the subject of any coverage and analysis about him and his work in real media. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You requested to delete an article name Ridoyanul Hoq. Because I moved the article directly from the draft space to the main space, and you also said that the references are from the blog site. Although this article was reviewed by 2 administrators before but I respect your opinion. One thing to note here is that: while moving the article from the draft to the main space with mobile, I didn't see the option like WP:AFC And I want to say about the references that, the references are not of any blog site. I'm new on Wikipedia, I don't know too much about Wikipedia policies, If you think my article still doesn't follow the Wikipedia rules, delete it ASAP. But if you think my article is suitable for main space, please remove the notice. Frryan404 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Frryan404, is not the alleged poor quality of some of the references in the current version or an earlier version. It's an alleged lack of reliable sources that would demonstrate that this man passes either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. (He doesn't need to pass both.) At the end of this "Articles for deletion" process, somebody other than Bearcat will evaluate the arguments for and against deletion, and will either (A) delete the article or (B) remove the notice. In order to increase the chances of (B), the best thing for you to do is to improve the article, in particular by citing reliable sources that will demonstrate that the subject satisfies either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not looking for sources that have his name in them, such that any directory entry you can find with his name in it would automatically be a notability-assisting reference — we're looking for reliable sources that represent substantive analysis of the significance of his work: news articles about him and his work, books about him and his work, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some news, but the news titles are almost the same. That's why I didn't add them. Although this article won to be deleted, but should I add the news? Frryan404 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the news is not entirely written about him. His credits are mentioned in the news along with other names. Frryan404 (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lóvera

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

Despite playing professionally in Argentina and Peru and semi-professionally in Chile, I am unable to find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. This was kept 10 years ago purely because of the deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, based on WP:FPL. This article now needs to be assessed against the guidelines that currently apply. The best Chilean source that I can find is Al Aire Libre and the best Argentine one is Mundo Ascenso; neither of these are even close to significant.

Worth noting that Ultima Hora is about a different person of the same name as the subject of that article is a Paraguayan winner of a Spanish lottery. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasba bill

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

The article was a copyright violation, that after being cleaned up, became a stub and has remained so for a decade. I can't find much evidence of WP:NOTABILITY as this bill was rejected. Doing a google search shows that there is not much on this topic aside from a few news stories from the time the bill was proposed, but I couldn't find anything significant after that. Given that more than a decade later no one gives significant coverage to this topic, this is not a topic of WP:ENDURING notability. VR talk 20:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hodyon

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

This is an entry for a "Defunct" company which was acquired by a company that then declared bankruptcy in 2018. The product "NuVinci CVT" is currently owned and marketed by another company under a different brand by the company which "survived" the bankruptcy (through the input of private capital). The CVT product is very notable and it has an in depth Wikipedia entry NuVinci_Continuously_Variable_Transmission . In my opinion this article (for a defunct corporation) has no relevance or notability (and contains dead links) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was also created by a "special purpose" account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pattidhill Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And they haven't edited anything in the last decade, only this article and the CVT one before that. I don't think we'll get pushback from them. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Procedural close. Nomination by sockpuppet and no one has voiced support for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harjinder Singh Dhami

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

Not meet WP:RS fail WP:GNG Wikiindiawikiindia (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. Anyone who would like to create a redirect here to Bogdan Klich, feel free. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Klich

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

There are no sources (or indication) I can find to suggest this academician is notable (his son Bogdan Klich is notable and has a significant and well sourced entry). I did find an obituary posted in the "mining machines journal." which was his employer.

https://komag.eu/images/maszynygornicze1/MM2022/MM3_2022/MM_2022_3_KLICH.pdf Flibbertigibbets (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Procedural close, nomination by sockpuppet and no one has voiced support for this nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pratikshya

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

Not meet to WP:GNG Wikiindiawikiindia (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "delete". (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Rabbit Radio

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

Article makes no specific claim of importance and overall fails WP:GNG. There are not multiple, independent sources covering the subject in-depth. User:Namiba 15:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. User:Namiba 15:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article currently cites 4 sources:
    • 2 from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which are in depth and independent from the topic (but are substantially similar to one another such that I only count them as one source)
    • One from Houma Today, about a sheriff's deputy who was relieved of duty due to her on-line activities. This article, although it's about the deputy, does provide substantial coverage of WRR in the context of her activities involving it.
    • One from the New York Times about far right groups finding legitimacy due to Trump's rhetoric. WRR is mentioned in that article as discussing that the president's statements had made their own views "mainstream". This source does not amount to the in-depth coverage required for GNG.
    • I'm able to find additional coverage in Homeland Security Today(discussing the use of cryptocurrency to fund the activities of hate groups, including the one in question), Media Matters (discussing their activities on Trovo), and The Guardian (discussing the reach WRR has among white supremacists and its influence in getting listeners to sign a petition).
    I'll see if I can make time over the next week to expand the article a bit with the additional sources I've found (but not linked). However, I would say the Southern Policy Law Center source and the Houma Today source combine to meet (certianly) the burden of A7 and also to meet the lower end of the burden of GNG. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important for research on white racism. Reevev (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most results for "White Rabbit Radio" have to do with Spotify playlists, the former CKCU-FM radio show, and artists with White Rabbit in their names, all of which don't share this thing's views. Just another 'guy with microphone' podcast/YouTube thing that most people have ignored outside sources which have make it hard to find the thing. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per ONUnicorn's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page doesn’t tell you a single thing. It looks like it was written by the subject itself. He’s written himself into imdb, too. While the sources paint a picture that could warrant an article, somebody needs to submit at least a stub, a thesis. I’ve had much more substantial articles rejected. Sveinbjornpalsson (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sirsi Kannada

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

Unsourced and does not exist. Kannada is spoken in Sirsi which is a location, not a dialect. Atsme 💬 📧 18:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Belzer

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

Insufficient sourcing to establish notability. First link in article may be a significant coverage by a reliable source but others does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Alimovvarsu (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep He is notable person. Worked as CEO in multiple notable corporations such as Uralmash. He contributed in international projects as well as to the business environment. Blogleads (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sufficient sources and evidence for your claim. Merely serving in notable companies cannot be a reason for notability. Alimovvarsu (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vissio

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

Article about a former footballer, who made a single appearance in the Argentine Primera and then played semi-professionally, which fails WP:GNG. I can only find trivial coverage such as match reports that indicate he played some matches as an Argentina youth player or in club football - there is nothing in-depth at all. Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Unfortunately, at least one of the new references is product placement and not independent review. There are no stories about the company and its purported notability. It fails WP:NCORP on this basis, and since ample time has been provided, there's really no choice but to delete. Katietalk 15:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mountain Bikes

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

A previously soft-deleted article but which, after undeletion, is wholly unimproved. No independent references that assert notability. Sources show that the company exists but nothing more. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion has only just happened, it would be nice if you let the improvements be added. My apologies if you feel this should be immediate. Thanks. Johnels (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I hadn't realised that. I would have moved it to draft had it not had such a long history including a previous deletion. All is not lost however. Find and add several reliable and independent sources that discuss the company and the article should survive. At present it is within a whisker of being an outright advertisement, so it does need much work.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
I am sourcing these references, and have added a few already.
I will also research some of the Orange marque's objective history and add that. Johnels (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. A primary point is that we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - we require at least two of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. We have reviews of their products (bikes) with almost nothing said about the company and then some primary sources. I'm happy to review my !vote if other references are produced that focus on the company but in the meantime, I'm unable to find any appropriate references, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD G3).This is a fantasy event, covered in pages on fandom and Instagram, and the article is a hoax. JBW (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

37th MIMINO Song Contest

edit
37th MIMINO Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax? I can't find a single thing verifying this. Fram (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus that subject is notable, sufficient reliable sources located. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Halty

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

Article about former footballer and goalkeeper coach who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. This interview has some prose about Halty, but it is mostly quotes from the subject. I can't find anything else that would contribute to meeting the GNG. PROD was removed without providing evidence that the GNG is met. Jogurney (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of NGC objects (3001–4000)#3901–4000. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 3944

edit
NGC 3944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. A surprising number of published papers mention this object, but only as a part of large surveys and lists. I couldn't find any mention of it in a dedicated study or as part of a small number of objects. Lithopsian (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Apparently it was discovered in 1785, so it fulfills criterion 4, but the coverage doesn't go beyond table listings, ie. [14][15]. --C messier (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as described above. The references to this galaxy in NED seem to be mostly in catalog papers and surveys, with little or no literature specific to this galaxy. Just being in the NGC catalog isn't enough for notability. Aldebarium (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted by Hatman31, the relevant guideline here is WP:NSPORTSEVENT, which says, "...news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers)." The sources provided by Red-tailed hawk are all from the night or day after the game was played, and as Muboshgu refuted, basically the same as routine coverage for any World Series game.

It is entirely possible this is an extraordinary game, and sources will appear in the future to justify that, but it has not been argued that they exist today.

Finally, I was initially going to close this as redirect, but enough people have complained about the current title that it doesn't make sense to create a redirect at a title people don't like. Legoktm (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astros's combined World Series no-hitter

edit
Astros's combined World Series no-hitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion objected to. This is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK created in the WP:RECENTISM of the event. Everything in this article is already stated at 2022 World Series, therefore this doesn't meet WP:NEVENT independent of the 2022 World Series. Yes, there are many sources about Game 4 of the 2022 World Series, but there are many sources about every World Series game, and none get individual pages, aside from Larsen's perfect game and the Shot Heard 'Round the World, which are notable exceptions. Roy Halladay's postseason no-hitter does not have a standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have an issue either way, but if I was leaning either way, I go with deleting it and merging it in the Game 4 section of the World Series page. posty (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly no need for a separate article; the relevant guideline is WP:SPORTSEVENT. I say delete rather than merge this because it seems like most if not all of its content is already in the article on the WS. Hatman31 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hatman31, I forgot about WP:SPORTSEVENT. That applies here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not be quite as notable as Don Larsen's perfect game, Bill Mazeroski's 1960 World Series home run, Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run or Joe Carter's 1993 World Series home run, but the 2nd no-hitter in World Series is still very notable. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Keep: It's not a perfect game, but the only other no-hitter in World Series history and the first one in 56 years, I believe is pretty notable. MushroomMan674 (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: Pitcher feats in the World Series are grossly underrepresented on wikipedia as a whole. We have multiple pages for individual World Series home runs, but essentially nothing other than Don Larsen's perfect game (which would've been made regardless of when it was done given its status as a perfect game). Blaylockjam10 said it probably isn't as notable as the individual home runs, but I actually disagree. The pitching staff for the Houston Astros did something that has only ever happened one other time in the World Series. I'd also throw out that Roy Halladay's postseason no-hitter not having a standalone article isn't the best comparison. It was extremely early in the postseason, they weren't playing for the championship in that series, his no-hitter did not have the same stakes behind it. Even so, it not having its own page, to me, is problematic as well. If anything this and Roy Halladay's no-hitter should both have their own articles. Korijenkins (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nowhere in these comments by Blaylockjam, MushroomMan, or Korijenkins is any mention of Wikipedia policy, just fandom. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for some policy based input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 04:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US immigration to the United States

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

No one seems to call this "US immigration to the United States", ever? We shouldn't be creating disambiguations for titles or concepts not described as such anywhere else. Fram (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My experience demonstrates quality problems due to the volume of nominator's NPP actions. I suggest slowing down.
  • About this one:
  • WP:Deletion policy Nominator should move the page or discuss the objection to the article title on Talk:US immigration to the United States Pages with incorrect names can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves..
  • References are not allowed in disambiguations and so the references at the linked pages must be used. This discussion really should be at the Talk:, but: Phrases such as
are more commonly used, but they're much too long. The latter is also too specific. Also any A-word phrase is going to be somewhat incorrect because it encompasses the entire hemisphere so American immigration to America is not ideal. I am very open to changing the title in some way. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 November 2022 (UTC)
If there is no actual disambiguation needed between the two subjects, i.e if they aren´t commonly referred to with the same term, then no disambiguation is needed and this page can be deleted. If you have issues with my NPP actions in general or my knowledge of the deletion policy, then please start a discussion at WP:ANI. Just beware of WP:BOOMERANG in that case. Fram (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the sources demonstrate they are commonly said to be the same thing.
"This is legally permitted entry to the country by a citizen"
"This is legally permitted entry to the country by a citizen"
sound the same. Wikipedia can take a WP:POV and say that this is or is not true but we obviously shouldn't do that.
My next step will be to talk with you on your Talk:. Why do you suggest I skip that? ANI would be inappropriate if I haven't done something like that yet and as you note that is a barely usable and toxic environment WP:ANI advice. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Look who it is again. Editing warring over minor details of my edits for 71 edits nonstop,[16] including edit warring by making an arbitrary edit with a bot, and then suddenly you stopped on November 4.[17] What interesting timing. Why did you stop? Did something on November 4 make you like me so much more? And why vote against me here rather than there? Invasive Spices (talk) 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Paranoid ramblings are off topic and irrelevant to whether or not US immigration to the United States should be deleted or kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/harjinder-singh-dhami-re-elected-sgpc-chief-449283
  2. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/harjinder-singh-dhami-is-sad-candidate-for-sgpc-president-101667550017991.html
  3. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/harjinder-singh-dham-elected-sgpc-chief-for-2nd-time-in-row/articleshow/95413129.cms
  4. ^ https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/amritsar/harjinder-singh-dhami-defeats-jagir-kaur-to-get-re-elected-as-sgpc-chief-8258845/lite/
  5. ^ https://newsonair.gov.in/Main-News-Details.aspx?id=450614
  6. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/nov/09/sads-harjinder-dhami-becomes-sgpc-chief-again-2516578.html
  7. ^ https://theprint.in/india/sads-harjinder-dhami-becomes-sgpc-chief-again/1206673/
  8. ^ https://www.abplive.com/states/punjab/punjab-news-harjinder-singh-dhami-of-akali-dal-won-the-election-for-the-post-of-sgpc-president-ann-2255732
  9. ^ https://www.apa.org/topics/immigration-refugees/undocumented-video
  10. ^ Poblete, Juan (2021). "Diary of an Undocumented Dreamer. Undocumented Vignettes from a Pre-American Life and the Heterogeneity of American Life". Camino Real: estudios de las hispanidades norteamericanas. 16: 123–139.
  11. ^ https://accredited-times.com/2018/06/15/cato-institute-now-hiring-daca-recipients/
  • G3? I assume you don't mean vandalism. What about this is a hoax? I've provided sources showing that there is popular confusion between the two. I just haven't provided sources showing that this is a good title. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • A major religious leader, in legislative testimony, uses the phrase "their country".[1] A legislator gives a speech (outside of the legislature, not related to the previous example) saying "This is their country."[2] And then there are the examples I've given above.[3][4][5]
These two things are very commonly said to be the same. I certainly find no examples with the exact phrasing of the disambig's title, so I'm not going to defend any particular phrasing. However the suggestion that the idea is nonsense is demonstrated to be incorrect.
We should move to a different title. Border entry by American citizens who were born elsewhere and have never entered before is perfectly accurate but obviously... Invasive Spices (talk) 13 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ . 2013. p. 35 https://books.google.com/books?id=JvyaFgVU8DUC&pg=PA35. These young women and men['s] ... commitment to pursue some form of ... service to their country, like joining the armed services ... {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Kugle, Andrew (2017). "Maxine Waters on Undocumented Immigrants: This Is Their Country". Retrieved 2022-11-11.
  3. ^ https://www.apa.org/topics/immigration-refugees/undocumented-video
  4. ^ Poblete, Juan (2021). "Diary of an Undocumented Dreamer. Undocumented Vignettes from a Pre-American Life and the Heterogeneity of American Life". Camino Real: estudios de las hispanidades norteamericanas. 16: 123–139.
  5. ^ https://accredited-times.com/2018/06/15/cato-institute-now-hiring-daca-recipients/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Legoktm (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Simpson

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

TL;DR: Unsourced biography, fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers.

In somewhat more detail: This is a 3 sentence biography of an actor who has not had any starring roles, and possibly more important, has not had any indepth articles from unrelated reliable sources written about him. I looked. I had nominated the article for WP:BLPPROD, but that was reverted by User:GB fan with the comment that the IMDB link about him was a source - er - I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source, but let's discuss that here.

To give GB fan credit, our policy WP:BLPPROD is self contradictory, since it says, in consecutive sentences "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." So does the source have to be reliable or not?

In any case, that's nitpicking about how the sausage was made. I think the article fails Wikipedia:Notability. Now if my Search-engine-fu was weak and I missed significant roles and/or indepth sources, I'll be only too happy; I like articles, and in fact, I will add a free image to the article from this video. But, unfortunately, I am reasonably experienced at this sort of thing and am fairly sure that they're not there, at least enough so for this nomination. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: now that BLPProd question has been addressed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing found, even his roles listed seem trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Judd

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

My WP:BEFORE search found dozens of items of routine coverage of results, but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Struan with semi consensus on the target. Star Mississippi 04:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struan's

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

Prod removed by anon, article has not been improved. My PROD rationale was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." At best I can suggest redirecting this to The Asian Saga. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Step GPS

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

The subject is non-notable as it does not have significant, non-routine coverage in independent, reliable sources. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify.. Procedural close and draftification following comments in discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Bianco

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

I got nothing per Google search thus fail WP:GNG. Kanoouwa1 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find independent sources. [18],[19],[20],[21] and [22] are enough to establish notability.Kasar Wuya (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence of notability as I can see there Bloomberg News and CNBC Zafafadubu (talk) 1:14,13 November 2022 (UTC)

  • CU note to closer - the account that nominated this, and both of the accounts that have !voted keep, are socks of the article's author, who is blocked for spam. Girth Summit (blether) 19:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close and draftify: This is a bad faith nomination in an attempt to protect the article by gaming !votes. The same sockmaster created the article, then used sockpuppets to revert a draftification, creating this AFD, and then !voting keep. It should be procedurally closed, and draftified again. Otherwise, delete since sources seem to be mostly passing mentions, brief quotes, etc. MarioGom (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that MarioGom's proposal is a good solution to bad-faith procedural gaming, (unless you see consensus to delete of course). Girth Summit (blether) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the coverage is not in-depth. Any attempt to create an article on this subject in the future should be required to go through AfC and be reviewed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detective (2019 film)

edit
Detective (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film of unclear notability and uncertain release status. When I first encountered this a few days ago, it was still titled "upcoming film" rather than "2019 film", but the article had existed since 2015 and was being generically categorized as a "2010s film", so after finding a few directory entries which ascribed it a 2019 release date I moved it to "2019 film" -- however, another user has now questioned the accuracy of those directory entries, and suggested that it's still not properly verifiable whether the film has even been released yet as of 2022.
But as always, Wikipedia does not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every single film that enters the production pipeline without regard to whether it ever comes out the other end as a completed and released film or not, and there isn't nearly enough sourcing here to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films at WP:NFO: four of the six footnotes are dead links, the other two are fairly short blurbs not substantive enough to secure permanent notability all by themselves, and even if the dead links prove recoverable by somebody with much better access to Bangladeshi media archives than I have, six footnotes still really wouldn't be enough "production coverage" to give an unreleased film an NFF-based exemption from NFO anyway.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to Bangladeshi sources can find solid confirmation that it actually has been released — but if the film actually has so little coverage that it's still in this much doubt whether it was ever actually released in the first place, then it's a film we really shouldn't have an article about at all, and even if it has been released, it still needs improved sourcing to support that anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the "another user" refered to in the nomination. The dead links have been repaired. There are more sources available (like the three Bengali language ones in the external links section). And at least one source more recent than 2016 does exist: [23] fleetingly describes the film in October 2019 as a film the director "is trying to make". The sources, however, are essentially all regurgitated press releases from the production company, gushing about how the film will be completed soon (that was in 2015). There is no independent analysis in secondary sources.
I concur with Bearcat that Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate database of all films that ever began production. An article should be more than just an announced list of cast and crew. Policy WP:NOTPLOT tells us that the encyclopedia should treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence. No independent, in-depth sources exist on which we could base such an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting blossoms

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

Article about an embroidery design in Taiwan that does not appear to be notable. The zh.wiki article isn’t much help in terms of sourcing and a google search didn’t turn up anything for me, though I don’t speak Chinese. This looks like something which attracted local attention but isn’t notable in our terms. Mccapra (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sourcing, but I can't translate most of them I find. I think they're talking about flowers in general. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lane sharing

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

The article has no cites which show that the subject is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Chidgk1 deleted nearly the entire text of the article before making this nomination, which is deceptive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you for not properly checking the edit history before throwing personal attacks towards Chidgk1. The Banner talk 16:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the one who deleted the whole article and is now tagbombing it instead of trying to improve it. Glad you could join us.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I restored the maintenance template that you removed. The Banner talk 16:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I resolved the issue. The article has sources that cite examples in Poland, Australia, and Switzerland. The tag is no longer valid, which is why I removed it after addressing the issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep/procedural keep nothing has changed since your last AFD nomination of this article just less than a month ago (which I was not involved in). The fact that two editors decided to remove content instead of using sources found in the last AFD isn't a basis for deletion. Looking in ebsco and ProQuest, that didn't seem to have been found in the last AFD:
Skynxnex (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have rebuilt the article with three sources discussing lane sharing. Shame on you, Chidgk1, for nominating this for deletion a second time despite knowing sources existed and were freely available. I lean more towards a "deletionist" perspective at AfD, but even I am appalled at your behavior here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per criteria 2.c: The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example: making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion. Jumpytoo Talk 19:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural close and trout. The last AfD just closed. Immediately running another one is just plain disruptive. Not to mention that there's already a discussion going on at Talk:Lane sharing. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucienne Abraham

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

Not notable politician. Can't find anything about the subject in google search. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Italian Winter Throwing Championships

edit
2022 Italian Winter Throwing Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, main article for this championship is at AfD as well and an individual year has even less significance. You can see from the pictures at this non independent source how many spectators there were for this minor event. Fram (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two? Kasper2006 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that if that page will be deleted will be an absolutely nonsense. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selinus University of Science and Literature

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

Does not appear notable (did quick WP:BEFORE) / where is the sustained, quality coverage? And not accredited so no grounds as part of any country’s system. We do not host articles to judge, warn about or promote… SeoR (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Maher Roberts

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

No citations to reliable sources to establish notability; a quick search failed to find substantial coverage in WP:RS. — The Anome (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sauce (record producer)

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

The sources just aren't there for WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only things sourced are artists they "engineered songs" for, whatever that means. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see no point in deleting this article this month when it will just get recreated next month. It will undoubtedly fulfill notability standards when the season starts. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 South Sydney Rabbitohs season

edit
2023 South Sydney Rabbitohs season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sources, and, as with the 2023 Canberra Raiders season, just a case of WP:TOOSOON. echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaxnaCarta, while I would say it is significant, the article probably still falls under WP:TOOSOON. However, I could see Draftify being a good option, as like you said, it will inevitably be recreated. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it is too soon if it is getting coverage. It is next years season, coverage is ramping up, people will be searching for it, and while an essay can be persuasive, it is not a guideline accepted by community consensus and I am not seeing a compelling reason to delete. Why is it too soon if timetabling and coverage is ongoing? To me, TOOSOON is to protect the project from future events that may never come to fruition or maybe if it was 2024's event.... MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I think at least having it in the draft namespace until January or so might be a good idea. But alas, we'll see what consensus develops over the course of the discussion. Thanks for your feedback! echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Paul

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person with no particularly strong notability claim. The principal notability claim here is that she is (or possibly was, considering how long this article has existed) president and CEO of a lottery corporation, which is not an "inherently" notable role in the absence of solid sourcing to get her over WP:GNG -- but three of the six footnotes here are primary sources (LinkedIn, her own employer) that are not support for notability at all, and two of the other three are from a user-generated discussion forum that isn't a reliable source. And while there is one citation to a daily newspaper here, it's a dead link that I can't recover via the Wayback Machine, it was a bare URL so there's no way to search for it by title, and even if it were recoverable it takes a lot more than just one newspaper hit to pass GNG. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cashing In". The Orlando Sentinel. 1987-11-29. pp. [1], [2], [3]. Retrieved 2022-10-27.
  2. ^ "Paul's lottery past: rocky beginnings, happier endings". The Tennessean. 2003-10-20. pp. [4], [5]. Retrieved 2022-10-27.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to evaluate new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The first two sources from the Florida and Tennessee papers are about her, the rest are semi-ok. Article needs a reworking with the source material though. Oaktree b (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not convinced by this coverage. Mere passing mentions are not significant coverage. I do not see sufficient depth in the coverage beyond anything routine. Not enough to build much more than a one line stub. Does not meet the general notability guideline imho. But, I concede, I also see a week keep argument. All of the above arguments are reasonable. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article in the Orlando Sentinel is entirely about Paul and is three pages long. This is not a passing mention. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The line "Paul gained national fame within the lottery community" in the article is a notability red flag, but the coverage presented above does, indeed, take Paul past WP:GNG. I would note the article needs a thorough spring clean, but as eny fule no, AfD ain't cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of coverage on her and she meets WP:GNG. In addition to the two articles I noted above, the New York Times also has a multi-page article on Paul. All three are now in her page, along with some new citations to get rid of some of the bare URLs. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renly Baratheon

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

After some research, I’ve noticed that this character lacks notability, and that the page itself includes no real-world or critical information regarding this character. Additionally, there has been some coverage on the character's sexuality, but only in the form of trivial mentions (with his significant other — Loras Tyrell — being the topic of discussion rather than Renly himself; check the sources on the main page). It’s best that this page is deleted/redirected due to the lack of coverage and stand-alone stories/articles/etc.. In my own opinion, I’d think it be best to delete this article, and merge some of its content to Loras Tyrell, seeing as his coverage appears to be more significant. While on the topic, I’ve also noticed a handful of other Game of Thrones-related articles (including Lord Varys, Ellaria Sand, Gilly, and the High Sparrow) also lack coverage in their articles and mostly consist of plot summaries. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antara Nandy

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

Not finding any independent sources at all. Everything I can find is either an interview or probably from a press release ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The contents are genuine and need not be deleted and certified by the artist herself. Incase needed , she or her office or her family can be connected thru their social media pages Nandys20 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information's are genuine and certified by the artist and their family and also substantiated by prestigious media houses who covered them. Nandys20 (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nandys20 I am going to guess that your ID is representative of the topic. If it's true, then you need to make a disclosure of 'conflict of interest' and step away from this conversation. RPSkokie (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous relist failed to work properly, resulting in this discussion getting lost. Relisting a third time to get it back in the system
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Ruby (programming language)#Features. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Ruby Shell

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

I do not personally feel that the highly specific nature of this article meets the threshold of WP:NOTABLE / WP:DUE for it to be considered an appropriate subject for an article in its own right. Probably most interpreted languages come with some form of REPL; do we need a separate article for every one? What about IRB merits its listing as a separate article, when (IMHO) it could more elegantly be a section of the main article on Ruby? Archon 2488 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and not transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Henry D. Sokolski. There is consensus that a notable subject exists here, and there is marginally more agreement that it is the person, rather than the organization. That Sokolski's article is/was in bad shape is only a reason to expedite the merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Clarifying after discussion on my talk page that consensus here is for a single article, but this discussion does not preclude future consensus that this single article should exist at the present title, rather than at Sokolski's article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

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

Non-notable with no third-party coverage. Article is unsourced and little more than an advertisement. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all this prior to this comment, every single statement in the article is now cited to secondary sources. If you have a conflict of interest and would like to discuss/request further modifications, please take it to the article Talk page, and I'm happy to continue editing. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would like to turn our attention that many of the sources are opinion pieces, most of those by the executive director himself, not factual reporting about the organization. I do not have the time to vet every source, but a quick review does not show any independent coverage about the organization in reliable secondary sources. I think the nom does know the rules, but I do not have time right now to review every one of them. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll list the secondary sources out shortly. I would just ask that all the anonymous users who are clearly very concerned about this article please chill out. Unless you have more secondary sources to suggest, it's confused things that we've had so many people pile on without knowing the rules. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To establish notability from a Wikipedia point of view, we need to demonstrate significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG (allowed per WP:NONPROFIT). By definition, think tanks struggle with this requirement because so much of the coverage generated comes from the organization itself (and thus is not independent). Coverage which draws too heavily on interviews with the subject often doesn't count, either.

Regarding the secondary sources that we have added to the article so far (*since* it was first nominated for deletion), which IMO are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, also in view of the fact that the activities of the organization are national (and international) in scope:

  • Sangillo, Greg and Kukis, Mark (2004). Nuclear, and Other, Worries in National Journal. NPEC executive director is one of 11 nonproliferation experts profiled in this article. Four in-depth paragraphs, explaining Sokolski/NPEC's stance on key issues, exactly what we want to see in secondary coverage about a think tank (even if subject and colleague were briefly quoted).
  • Margulies, Philip (2008). Nuclear Nonproliferation. Book published by Gale Research. Includes some independent analysis of the quality of research, the calibre of staff, and political leanings of NPEC (hence the Bush administration discussion above), compared and contrasted with other think tanks, over a few pages within the book. It's not the Platonic ideal of SIGCOV, but of all the sources, this was one of the most helpful not only in validating the significance of NPEC, but also in clarifying its positioning vis-à-vis other organizations within the field, from several angles.
  • Webb, Gregory (2003). National Journal article on top web sites across 50 issue areas. The NPEC web site is featured in the category "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Yes, it's one paragraph, but it's one paragraph in an independent, reliable source also validating the authority and expertise of the organization within this subject area.
  • Oswald, Rachel (2018). Congressional Quarterly magazine feature article on the NPEC public policy fellowship. This is the most in-depth, focused article on NPEC. Four out of 14 paragraphs include direct quotes from Sokolski, and while much of the article refers indirectly to information he has shared with Oswald, it also includes quotes from a California Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat regarding their views on NPEC, facts about the public policy fellowship, and information about the reach and potential impact of the NPEC program reported by Oswald which was reviewed and approved by editors of Congressional Quarterly.
  • Arms Control Today (January/February 2015), book review of Moving Beyond Pretense: Nuclear Power and Nonproliferation edited by Sokolski of NPEC.
Finally, to give an idea of how extensively NPEC is cited in the mainstream media by secondary sources, please see the Citations page on their web site. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Henry D. Sokolski As far as I can see (paywalls permitting), pretty much all of the substantive RS coverage is of Sokolski speaking, not about the activities of the NPEC independent of him. (Have I missed something?) OsFish (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The merge seems to be the best option. Oaktree b (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to #TeamNPEC: This is why it was a bad idea to add more Sokolski-centric content to the NPEC page. I will add back more information, cited, about the think tank's programs and activities, which will help to make a better case for why there should be standalone page for the think tank. (This is a common problem with businesses and other organizations where the founder/entrepreneur has a big footprint on the organization, and isn't insurmountable.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of the AfD, could you provide some accessible links here to a reasonable number of RS that give substantive coverage to NPEC independently of Sokolski's activities (ie more than a reference to Sokolski's position in NPEC when he is quoted?)? I'm aware my !vote is based on an absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence (such as exhaustive google searches turning up nothing and so would be happy to reverse if multiple such RS exist.OsFish (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you log in to Wikipedia Library and click on the links, they should work. (If you don't have access to it yet, you may be able to get an account by asking and explaining why you need it.) You can check out the Nuclear Nonproliferation book from the Internet Archive (which is free). The CQ Magazine article is now locked down again (it was open for a while), but you can read excerpts of it at the bottom of this page. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem for me is that I just don't see significant coverage of the NPEC distinct from Sokolski's personal activities in these sources as required per WP:GNG. I would need more information to locate the wayback machine's copy of the Nuclear Nonproliferation book, but going by the preview on Google Books, it makes only passing mention to the NPEC - an address listing and brief description, and in mentions of Sokolski. That isn't significant coverage to my mind. The link you gave to CQ quotes contains cited praise for Sokolski more than the NPEC. I looked at the first couple of pages of results in the Wikipedia Library, and I didn't see any secondary sources that cover the activities of the NPEC as opposed to the activities specifically of Sokolski. Could you cite specific articles? I'm not a deletionist by nature; it's just that I genuinely haven't see much evidence yet that this is, going by Wikipedia policies, a separate topic to Henry Sokolski.OsFish (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reformatted the article to more closely follow the think tank template used elsewhere, so please be sure to read the latest version of Nonproliferation Policy Education Center as well, which now makes it clearer that it's an organization with participation from many other people. If I had to choose between the two, I would keep NPEC and merge Sokolski's bio into NPEC. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There hasn't been any significant changes to the sourcing since my initial !vote that would show NPEC a topic independent of Sokolski. Establishing that an entity exists isn't sufficient for it to be notable. Sokolski's own page shows that he has done far more than just the NPEC. To merge his page to here would be to lose a lot of RS-backed material. OsFish (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. The Sokolski page had zero sources. I just recently moved some of the sentences and citations from this page to the Sokolski page so it wouldn't look so bare, and those are mostly commentary by him in larger articles, not about him. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The other thing I added was 1) information about the NPEC Public Policy Fellowship as a standalone program, and its impact on the Hill; 2) funding information from MacArthur and Carnegie Foundations; 3) calling out NPEC publications including edited volumes with contributions from other non-NPEC experts, and demonstrating their wider impact including citations in other publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a conflation going on with the independence of NPEC from Sokolski in the real world, and the independence of the NPEC's notability sans Sokolski. So much of what is said substantively about the NPEC not as a creature of Sokolski is from the NPEC itself. That's not secondary. The sourcing for Sokolski's page isn't great, but that's fixable because all the details all can be confirmed in published reliable sources. I just added a couple of sources myself. Anyway, I think I've made my own position as clear as I can, so I won't waste your time stating it over again after this.OsFish (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We can agree to disagree, but I did want to point out, I was quite careful to cite sources that were independent of NPEC for NPEC, whereas the information from his bio understandably suffers from the problem that most government career bios face (boilerplate bios that get republished everywhere and facts that can be difficult to cross-reference externally). Regardless, I value your thoughts on this because I am wondering whether I should propose a subject notability guideline specifically for think tanks, similar to WP:NACADEMIC. And thanks for adding to Sokolski's bio, I do think the more we expand and add citations to that one, the clearer the difference will be! Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While Cielquiparle has made huge improvements to the article, I still believe NPEC is borderline. It is also pretty much (AFAICS) a vehicle for Henry D. Sokolski - and I note the Merge suggestion above, but the Henry D. Sokolski page has no citations whatsoever and is appallingly sourced - there could be an argument for merging THAT article with this one. I doubt both deserve to continue existing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to @Alexandermcnabb:: I agree that only one page should exist. My own preference is for the person rather than the organisation because the RS thus far provided across the two articles seem to be about Sokolski primarily, establishing his, not NPEC's notability. WP:INHERITORG states "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it...The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." So I think it would make sense for the good work done on improving the article here be used for Sokolski's page rather than go to waste. OsFish (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. B. Raghunathacharya

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, created by editor with a disclosed COI. The sole example of independent secondary coverage is a brief notice of having won an award [32]. The awards section of the article is a mess, but even if taken at its poorly-phrased-and-referenced word that Raghunathacharya has won all of these awards, none of them appear to meet notability guidelines in their own right and thus don't count towards WP:ANYBIO. Being a university administrator may indicate notability, but as a vice chancellor it's not a shoo-in in the absence of GNG. I was unable to find more sources online: searching on Google Books and Google Scholar, he gets some citations, but not enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC. With the available sources, any article would be an exercise in original research and I don't see a guideline-based reason to assume additional sources exist. signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill, thanks for sharing this detail, it is specific and very helpful. Please see my responses below
"Does not appear to meet WP:GNG," - Times of India was and is one of the major newspapers in India (Alexa Rank #269 worldwide) and in the early 2000s Internet coverage was not great like it is today.
"The awards section of the article is a mess, but even if taken at its poorly-phrased-and-referenced word ..." - I agree with you on the poorly-phrased part, the words are verbatim from the Government of India website, I don't mind if it's rephrased for clarity http://www.sanskrit.nic.in/president_award_scheme.php
"notability guidelines in their own right" - In my mind, Award from the highest official in the country, President of India, is notable.
"but as a vice chancellor it's not a shoo-in in the absence of GNG" - Not sure what absence of GNG means, the official university website has been referenced. As others have pointed out, Vice-Chancellor of an Indian University is the highest position at the university
Best, Sbssmadhav (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest actually reading through WP:GNG so that you understand what is being asked of the article (and all articles, generally). If that guideline is too confusing, see WP:THREE, which is a simplified explanation. As for the President's Award, two notes: 1. The standard for awards contributing towards establishing notability is that they must themselves be established as notable, per our own guidelines (i.e. GNG). 2. It's not clear that it's actually awarded by the President of India, but rather is an award issued by the university Raghunathacharya worked at, per the sources provided in the article [33]. signed, Rosguill talk 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and I missed updating the reference to the official Ministry of Human Resources (MHRD) Government of India URL. I have updated the link to point to https://www.education.gov.in/en/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/awardees2002.pdf, this is not an award from the university, it is from the President of India, APJ Kalam, please see the reference in the PDF, number 11 on page 1 is Prof. S.B. Raghunathacharya. Thank you. Sbssmadhav (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, that PDF in itself says basically nothing about the award other than who it was given to in 2002. But regardless, even if we assume that it's a government award, that doesn't make it Wikipedia-notable. You would need to provide enough sources to write an article about the award. signed, Rosguill talk 14:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The name of award which he got is President's Certificate of Honour and editors can get detail of award from this link http://www.sanskrit.nic.in/president_award_scheme.php#2002 (Note - This website run under National Informatics Centre. Contributor008 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chancelor of the university might be notable, but there is nothing else that pushes them over GNG. almost but not quite. Oaktree b (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Anycast

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

PROD contested (Courtesy @Piotrus and Kvng: respectively) but I do not see that the sources Kvng identified are sufficient enough, nor does my own BEFORE indicate other coverage that might work. I'm not sure whether there's a viable ATD as the products don't appear listed anywhere helpful to the reader, so bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 18:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, what do you find insufficient about the sources I identified? ~Kvng (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My primary concerns are: this one appears to be a marketing and PR firm, no indication that it's a vetted reliable source/SM expert, Ozer has only a handful of reviews, although the magazine itself might be fine (this is the best of the three sources, personally), and this is a project/case study. As you said NPRODUCT is lesser requirements than NORG so this may ultimately be kept, but I do not think it is sufficiently notable Star Mississippi 23:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Kvng found three reviews, but what makes them reliable? Star Mississippi makes a valid claim above they are not. For now, I am weak delete, due to found sources (reviews) likely not being reliable, but ping me if argument for their reliability, or other, more reliable sources are presented, and I'll revisit my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a review written by a freelancer published by a reputable trade magazine. A review by a staffer at a general interest publication would be more reliable but I don't think this should be thrown out. I don't understand what's iffy about a published report on a a project/case study. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources ~Kvng (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's be clear, the article as-written is pretty bad. But the product was significant and the topic is notable:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cebu Reggae Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage and its own website is dead. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Bruce Highway#Queensland Electric Super Highway. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Electric Super Highway

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

Only one source, zero non-primary sources. Does not pass WP:GNG. Numberguy6 (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found some sources:
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/08/charging-on-queensland-electric-super-highway-going-to-gladstone-ecofest/
https://www.drive.com.au/news/queensland-electric-super-highway-announced/
But I don't really think they are notable Roostery123 (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This information is in the Bruce Highway article. Recommend change this article to a redirect to Bruce Highway#Queensland Electric Super Highway. Downsize43 (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logos Group

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

Longstanding "marketing" for a translation business; which is one of many translation businesses. I was able to find a mention of the subject (as a line item, one of many) in an industry trade journal. There is nothing I can find that speaks to notability. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grenfell Regional Health Services Board

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

Nominating for procedural reasons, minimal sourcing and I am not sure it meets WIKI:GNG--IMR2000 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cue Health

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

See previous AfD for analysis of sources which show they fail to meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Renominating this for deletion now that two Keep !voters previously have been blocked as socks. Pinging previous participants Wgullyn, Multi7001, Yitzilitt. HighKing++ 17:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the following:
  • An AP News reference that discusses a partnership with the NBA to conduct covid testing. That reference is dated the day after the press[ [https://pr.nba.com/cue-health-covid-19-testing-2021-22-nba-season/ releases from both the topic company and the NBA. It doesn't have anything significant or in-depth about the company, fails both NCORP and ORGIND.
  • This from STAT news as well as this from the San Diego Union Tribune are based on an announcement by the company - same announcement that was used for the basis of numerous other articles all dated on the same day (or even the day before) such as this in MedtechDive (note this acknowledges the "Cue Health Press Kit") and this in Fierce Biotech from the previous day and lots of others such as Genomeweb, Mobile Health News, Beckers Hospital Review, etc, etc. Same information, same publishing date or thereabouts, all based on a company press kit, fails ORGIND.
  • This from Genome web is based entirely on an announcement. Says it in the first sentence. It does not have any "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.
  • This from IllinoisPolicy is a mere mention-in-passing and does not contain any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from AdWeek is once again an article based on PR. The date on the article is before the SuperBowl (so its not like the journalist saw the superbowl ad and said, Cool, lets so an article) and is the same date that the company issued a Press Release that was picked up by lots of publishers such as Bloomberg, AdAge, Mediapost, etc. Again, fails ORGIND.
  • The Bloomberg reference clearly states that the information is from an anonymous source and that both the topic company and the banks involved declined to comment. Leaving aside any WP:RS discussion, the article itself contains almost no in-depth information about the company (that wasn't provided previously by the company, e.g. Cue Health has said it's also...). Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • The TechCrunch reference has no in-depth information about the company - it focuses on a bug wit one of their devices - fails CORPDEPTH
  • This NYT reference has no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH, but is also based entirely on a company announcement and fails ORGIND. Same date and information in numerous other articles including two that are already in the article - a CNBC reference and a Bloomberg reference. There's others too.
None of those references meet NCORP in my opinion but if you think some of the ones you've mentioned do meet NCORP, can you point to the part of the reference you think does? HighKing++ 15:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret the "in-depth" in WP:CORPDEPTH, particularly an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization and in regards to the NYT, Bloomberg, and AP sources. If we applied the standards of CORPDEPTH that you're applying here to all of wikipedia, very few articles would survive.
Overall, it's relatively clear to me that nothing I say here is going to change your opinion on this. You may feel free to have the last word, I will not reply. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond only because you're misrepresenting what I've said. As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet *all* the criteria. The references you've listed not only fail CORPDEPTH but also ORGIND - that is, once you remove the information provided by the company and/or the execs (as per ORGIND), the odd sentence or two that remains is insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 11:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Bobby Blood (musician). Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Nurse

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Except for one Film Threat review which is RS, SIGCOV, and also independent and of significant coverage, the rest are routine non-SIGCOV podcasts and synopsis details, more non-RS, non-SIGCOV sites including YouTube and IMDb, and non-RS podcasts that has no editorial policies showing a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required per WP:RS, WP:USEBYOTHERS is further inadequate and the authors are not subject-matter experts. My WP:BEFORE search only found a blog Powered by WordPress.com (non-reliable). As GNG requires multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources constituting of SIGCOV, it is failed, additional WP:NFILM criteria are also not met. Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell Nurse soft deleted by Liz, pinging previous participant, User:ReaderofthePack, User:ScreamCorps, and User:Bovineboy2008, I also had a discussion with Storchy at Talk:Hell Nurse. VickKiang (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from delete to Redirect to Bobby Blood (musician), convinced by ReaderofthePack below. As this is a 2022 film, it might simply be WP:TOOSOON, and more reviews in RS would probably make it notable by WP:NFILM. We're still on the tail end (I hope) of the pandemic, so 2023 might also be a busier year for film festivals. Storchy (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one review is not enough for notability. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bobby Blood (musician). There's really only one good source here, the Film Threat review. The other independent sources are all self-published sources like podcasts - sometimes, rarely, those can be seen as a RS but that's not really the case here. Horror is one of those areas where it's really difficult to gain coverage, as the mainstream outlets tend to ignore the indie stuff and the genre outlets (that would be RS on here) can only review so many films. If this had another 2-3 reviews then this would be a different story. My recommendation, if the director sees this, is to submit the film for review in places like Dread Central, Ginger Nuts of Horror, Culture Crypt, Bloody Disgusting, and pretty much any of the outlets listed as RS at WP:HORROR/S, assuming you haven't already. Film festivals are also a great way to go about this as well - FrightFest is a great one, if you can get your film in and go overseas, as a LOT of people attend that. In the meantime the director looks like he's probably notable, although the article needs some cleanup. This can redirect to his article for the time being. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReaderofthePack: Thank you for your suggestion, per WP:ATD I will support redirect as the nominator as well. VickKiang (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus here is to delete this article and no editor has brought forth sources that could establish notability. Anyone can create a redirect from this page to id Software. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Stratton

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, and his recent "controversy" is more related to Doom Eternal than the subject itself. Either delete or merge into a more relevant article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whilst it does make sense to have pages for pioneers of videogame technology like Shigeru Miyamoto the creator of Mario or John Carmack who revolutionized real-time 3D graphics technology. Marty Stratton as a person is not notable and the only reason why I know about him is because of the recent controversy surrounding him (not to say controversy disqualifies a person given that Tim Sweeney (who was involved in some legal battles with Apple) rightfully has a page due to developing the first iteration of the Unreal Engine. 121.200.4.114 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only reason this page seems to exist is to cover the recent controversy, which should probably be covered on the main page for Doom Eternal anyway. xezno: contribs | talk 03:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the recent changes removed a long table of his credits. Opening a revision from yesterday has it back. This article was first indexed on the wayback machine in 2016, adding his credits for several other titles. 2607:FEA8:3D5F:A3A0:ECCE:FB92:E96A:480E (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to have many credits, though they are not currently listed in the article, as well as relatively broad media coverage within the gaming sphere. –DMartin 07:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to id Software. If you want to make a worthy article about him, do it in draftspace, then bring it into mainspace when it's of sufficient quality. Criticalus (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the afd nomination is in time to "interest" and longstanding controversy about the subject which is now getting significant coverage WP:SUSTAINED; this suggests that the subject was historically notable in some way WP:NOTTEMPORARY To some people, with a speciality interest, the topic is quite notable. The subject might/might not be a creative professional. WP:AUTHOR. Agreed it is a huge market and medium. Agreed, When I read the article it read to me as advertising or promotion. My suggestion would be to let the controversy settle down a bit, with current interest to see if the article can be improved, and then revisit if necessary. I can see that it might be frustrating to keep an article tagged for a decade, but the interest makes the point that the subject may be notable Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "When I read the article it read to me as advertising or promotion." That kind of content should not be on Wikipedia mainspace. If that is indeed how the article reads, perhaps it should move to draftspace until it no longer has those issues? Criticalus (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Article was tagged for notability for twelve years, and in that entire duration nothing was done to establish SIGCOV. A recent controversy that temporarily has his name in the news doesn't change that and is not enough to meet BLP guidelines. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the lack of content within the article itself, Marty Stratton fulfills the basic criteria of notability outlined in WP:BIO#Basic_criteria and should be presumed notable. His actions related to his company has been the subject of multiple published works from secondary sources. Within the context of determining basic criteria, the definition of "published work" to qualify as a secondary source is deliberately broad, so we can consider anything from a news organization to an individual youtuber, so long as they are reliable, independent of one another, and independent of the subject. However, for the sake of this evaluation, we will instead consider organizations like IGN, The Escapist (magazine), Variety (magazine), and Eurogamer. Each aforementioned entity qualifies as WP:RS#News_organizations within the video game industry that have released publications discussing Marty Stratton's actions in the industry, and have no relation to either Marty Stratton or his company.
Further, Marty Stratton is notable for multiple events beyond this controversy and does not fall under any categories of WP:NOT, meaning he does not meet any of the exclusionary criteria for the classifications. Under the notability guidelines in effect as of November 2022, the subject of this article meets basic criteria of a notable person. As such, the article should not be deleted on the basis of notability. 2001:56A:7C0F:4000:C085:1C31:F5B:B7FD (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC) — 2001:56A:7C0F:4000:C085:1C31:F5B:B7FD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This word salad sounds quite promotional in tone while going off topic and not addressing the issues with the article. "Presumed notable" doesn't qualify for keeping a BLP on Wikipedia. If Stratton was "notable for multiple events", they'd definitely be in the article and it wouldn't be nominated. Furthermore, some of the sites you linked here aren't even cited therein, while the current sourcing is already questionable (Medium, Reddit, YouTube). sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Blomberg

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

The page does not satisfy wikipedias notability standards.
A previous AfD resulted in Delete but no action was taken? OrganicMatterDevourer (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patronise: would you be willing to link to the three sources you feel best demonstrate the notability of the subject? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shooting at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 600 metre free rifle prone. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeniusz Waszkiewicz

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS a WP:BEFORE didn't bring any new info and his article in polish is similar like this one. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_10&oldid=1122636175"