Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
< March 25 March 27 >

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. ✗plicit 23:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stars & Stripes (soft drink)

Stars & Stripes (soft drink) (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 brand that's only secondarily mentioned by sites selling it. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly notable. Searching for it does return lots of results however none of them are reliable enough to establish notability. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not finding anything in sources that would really contribute to notability. Ad websites etc. don't really count for anything here. KoA (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This trivial mention is about all I can find [1]. non-notable brand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article subject doesn’t have sufficient notability. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2023 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric John Bergbusch

Eric John Bergbusch (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve sourcing. I see sources that make me lean towards notability. I also see he remained relevant a decade after office, being published in an article about Canada leaving NATO (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40203276). The article has sourcing issues, but I refuse to believe there are no outstanding print sources for the Canadian ambassador to East Germany in office towards the end of the Cold War. Not ripe for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neither of the keep !votes above is actually based in policy. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. The only "source" in the article is not about the subject. Jo7hs2 BEFORE showed the only a single primary nothing else worth reporting, other Keep showed nothing. My BEFORE showed nothing, Keep voters haven't offerred anything other than a single primary, article itself is unsourced since the ref isn't about the subject. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the notability criteria for Wikipedia are meant to ensure that the encyclopedia contains articles about subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If there is not enough evidence to support the subject's notability, then it may be appropriate to consider deleting the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2023 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations in Nagaland

List of railway stations in Nagaland (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 to meet WP:NLIST as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or Merge) with servicing railroad’s page(s). Fails NLIST. But, the information is useful and should be preserved, if it wouldn’t clutter the serving railroad or servicing rail segment page. Being a standalone article is unnecessary. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If i saw this earlier I would have said "Speedy Keep". Decisions whether to merge or split subsections/pages within the world-wide List of railway stations, or whether to include certain items or not, should not be brought to AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but article passes WP:CLN/WP:AOAL.  // Timothy :: talk  09:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No suitable rationale for passing GNG was advanced. This is probably simply a WP:TOOSOON article. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Batuhan Çelik

Batuhan Çelik (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 due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources in the article, [2] is an automatic compilation from a database that is part of massive amount of similar articles on the same site[3], [4] is three lines of routine transfer announcement, [5] is an interview and thus WP:PRIMARY, [6] is a short match report. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG with significant coverage. Also this meme needs to end, interviews don't go against PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More accurately they are not independent of the subject and thus do not go towards GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ortizesp, could you please explain what you mean by "interviews don't go against PRIMARY"? WP:PRIMARY specifically lists interviews as an example of a primary source, does it not? –dlthewave ☎ 13:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Seems to be an interesting prospect from what I read online, some sources there. I feel this is one to send to draft space which could pass GNG in the future. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is highly unlikely anything will change N in the next six months for this subject, not impossible, but I seriously doubt it will happen. If someone wants the old article because new sources are found in the coming years, they can REFUND.  // Timothy :: talk  11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Reference
Promo bio 1. "Batuhan Celik kimdir, nereli? Boyu ve yaşı kaç? Batuhan Celik Hangi takımlarda oynadı?". Bölge Gündem Haber.
Photo, no info 2. ^ "Başakşehir'de Batuhan Çelik profesyonel oldu". Fotomaç.
Interview quote 3. ^ "Başakşehir'de Batuhan Çelik, Adnan Januzaj, Gent Maçı Sonrası Konuştu". ajansspor.com.
Team photo after a game 4. ^ "U18 Milli Takımı Romanya'yı mağlup etti". Sabah.
Keep provided no sources.
The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:SPORTSPERSON is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE and WP:SPORTSPERSON. Since they don’t, however, the strongest case to made here is the one for deletion. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ortizesp. Also, he is young player with ongoing career in the fully pro Turkish Super Lig, which has lots of media coverage, and also already a Turkey youth international. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Das osmnezz Ortizesp states the subject has enough significant coverage to pass GNG without identifying any significant coverage whatsoever. Can you point to any of this significant coverage? Also, being young and having an ongoing career passes no inclusion criteria and playing in a notable league also does not make you notable as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All this you know very well. Alvaldi (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Djémoussa Traoré

Djémoussa Traoré (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 due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources in the article, all are from database sites. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Diaby

Abdoulaye Diaby (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 due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. Of the sources in the article, [7] is a document from FIFA, [8][9] are routine transfer stories, [10] is from his team and thus not independent from the subject, and [11] is a database source. Alvaldi (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I managed to find two Al-Jazeera articles about him [12], [13]. He is also mentioned in several Guardian articles [14]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoldenBootWizard276 [15] is a transcript of a podcast interview with Benjamin Chevallier, the director of a documentary about Diaby, that has some prose from the interviewer. [16] seems to have been a Youtube embed of the documentary but it is unavailable now. Even so, if we consider the transcript a significant source, we still need more as GNG requires multiple sources and for notability purposes, multiple sources from the same publication counts as one. At a glance, I didn't find any significant sources in the Guardian articles. If you know of any significant sources there, please add them to this discussion. Alvaldi (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alvaldi: Abdoulaye Diaby is mentioned (albeit briefly) in The Indian Express:

    Adding to coach Des Buckingham’s woes, substitute defender Singh was the culprit in conceding a penalty six minutes before the break after his raised arm blocked a shot from Abdoulaye Diaby, prompting the referee to instantly point to the spot.

    Also the documentary is on Prime Video[17] and in several other sources, [18][19][20]. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Per source above but the first is a primary sources not secondary but it goes a long way partially.Epcc12345 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some sources not previously mentioned, [21][22][23] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Besides the sources above, I also found 13 among more sources. Also, he has an ongoing career with one of Hungary's most successful teams Ujpest in the fully pro Hungarian top flight (30+ appearances already), which generates media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NOTABILITY, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. The sources provided in the table above satisfy SIGCOV requirements necessary to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG guidelines. On my own review of the subject and sources, I find that notability criteria are met by the amount of demonstrable reliable independent source significant coverage. Additionally, the nature of the coverage indicates WP:IMPACT, which also supports inclusion as a standalone article under inclusion guidelines. The fact that promotional material exists on the subject is not a valid reason to suggest deletion (many subjects covered in Wikipedia articles are heavily promoted outside of Wikipedia, but that doesn’t negate their notability). Furthermore, the subject does indeed pass notability thresholds under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 23:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Willer

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 23:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellary White

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Quashie

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Crossan

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

Article fails WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER. Searched Google and couldn't find any coverage of this person. Searched newspapers.com and there are a few trivial mentions of this person: 3 ads for workshops they hosted, 2 reviews of a CD her band put out, and 1 review of a music festival that mentions she will be there but she is not the focus of the article. I was only able to find this with her name Kate Crossan as her stage name returned nothing. There are only two references in the article one is a link to their personal website that doesn't load and another is a review of an album put out by a band that they were a member of.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Canadian Journal for Traditional Music Yes Appears to be a journal for reviews of music ? Website doesn't list any qualifications or academic departments or organizations aligned with this journal ~ Names Crossan as part of a band in a review. Nothing about the author or the article is included or able to be found. ? Unknown
Personal Website ? Returns a 404 error ? Returns a 404 error ? Returns a 404 error ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Ireland. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete agree with source table above. There is no coverage for this individual, not meeting GNG. I can't find any sort of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find anything other than performance notices and a press release about the launch of Away. S0091 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG, not a notable singer. Spleodrach (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:SINGER as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:SINGER is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:SINGER, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:SINGER, GNG, or WP:BIO. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn (see page history); re-closing as keep as it was strangely formatted. (non-admin closure) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in the United States

Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in 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)

The subject of the article does not satisfy WP:MN and most of the sources are self-published. A previous ProD was disputed by another editor, but their subsequent contributions have not shown that the article's subject is notable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally nominating SEAMUS Lifetime Achievement Award for the same reasons. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 19:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This article does not fall under WP:MN as it isn't a music group but is a nonprofit organization so it needs to pass WP:ORG not WP:MN. I've gone through the article and removed a large chunk of it, added sources to support WP:NONPROFIT. This group is interesting in that it's basically an academic society, for example the president of the org is a professor at NYU and many members of their board are academics or teachers. But since it's a musical society their conferences are also public music events. I've added a source table for all of the sources that are on the article as of now. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 21:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
seamusonline.org No Website for the organization No Website for the organization Yes Website for the organization ✘ No
Iowa City Press-Citizen Yes Local newspaper without ties to the org Yes Does not appear to be biased Yes Local newspaper covering a conference the org is hosting ✔ Yes
The Post-Crescent Yes Local newspaper without ties to the org Yes Does not appear to be biased Yes Local newspaper covering an event the org is hosting ✔ Yes
The Missoulian. Missoula Yes Local newspaper without ties to the org Yes Does not appear to be biased No Mentions that local students were selected to attend and perform at a conference that the org puts on ✘ No
The Roanoke Times Yes Local newspaper without ties to the org Yes Does not appear to be biased ~ Mentions the organization but it is not the main topic of the article, but it is an important part of the article ~ Partial
Dartmouth Library Archives & Manuscripts Yes Academic library Yes Academic library ~ Coverage is about one of the founder of the org, but it does mention the org and his role in it. ~ Partial
College Music Society Yes Nonprofit org that promotes music teaching ~ Article talks about the founding of the org and is written by one of the founders of the org Yes Article is only about the org ~ Partial
seamusonline.org No Website for the organization No Website for the organization Yes Website for the organization ✘ No
OCLC WorldCat ~ Link to a database ~ Link to a database ~ Covers the journal that the org publishes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
@Dr vulpes: Thanks for your contributions! I didn't actually yet have access to the Wikipedia Library when I opened this discussion, and missed the newspaper articles as they didn't turn up in Google searches. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination after reading the sources you added. I think it'd be fair to merge SEAMUS Lifetime Achievement Award in as a section for this article, as it probably fails WP:GNG on its own. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 11:18 PM, March 26, 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me this one was tricky for sure. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mohsen (Producer)

Mohamed Mohsen (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)

Non-notable person. Other version already deleted on arwiki (previously deleted three times here). About article sources, all of them fake and from unreliable websites: (1) IMDb (WP:IMDB) and (2-18: 12 not working) paid with fake news and photoshopped images (1 + 2); you can notice, that all published either in July/August/September 2022 or January 2023. Texts are also repeated with the titles changed. Also, it's very obvious the try to prove notability by citation overkill, and most of the information in the article was not mentioned in the sources. Maybe there is some kind of promotion in this article, especially same user try to create Exclusive Movies (streaming platform) and Exclusive Movies, especially those two articles (Mohamed Mohsen + Exclusive Movies) associated with this sock master (with 19 socks) in arwiki, which already blocked in enwiki, example special:diff/983052586. Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: @علاء I mean, there are 18 news related to the article, and I have many articles on Google in the largest Egyptian news sites, and all of these are unreliable sources??
I mean, you think that the staff in all the newspapers and the editor-in-chief in each newspaper do not understand anything and fake news, and all the editors and administrators who Edited the article are also wrong, and you are the only right one !!
I'm not related to Sock puppet, Because he added all information on alpoop But I'm Mohamed Mohsen Not related to him.
Please search on Google [24] 196.157.69.183 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 19:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is PROMO and uses what appear to be non-RS. I can't find anything for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because there are many reliable sources as shown in the search on Google [25] ، Please Check, Thanks. 196.221.48.141 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2023 (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. Aoidh (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deseo Inherente

Deseo Inherente (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 source is a fake leak with a stock image barcode from shutterstock and a misspelled address, see here: https://mobile.twitter.com/ashmebarak/status/1639692971330228233/photo/1 1arch (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 1arch (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I participate in this consultation, but I do not think it is necessary to delete the page. I already saw the source but it is that in the news they say that the name of the album and the track list has been leaked but the account itself is Ash Mebarak; Shakira does not say her official account but the record companies are not lying because I mean the company is Sony Music Latin and I don't think it's a lie. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the article because I've seen on the news that Ed Sheeran is also working with Shakira for her new album. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But trust the record companies because the companies never lie if it's an album produced by Shakira she says everything is true so let's trust Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some sort of scam? I can't find anything about this "thing" and the sourcing is silly. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftity. Sources 1 to 6 are not about the album, and the only source discussing the album simply says that the track listing and title were leaked from an alleged back cover image. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that, I mean, it's not a scam if I already saw the news, also check the references that refer to the album I put few because the rest are from google amp and a filter does not let me add these types of links so I do not add many but it would be better if Remove the google amp link from the blacklist in order to provide more details as in Spanish Wikipedia Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But deleting it is not necessary because for me what the company Sony Music Latin said is true because perhaps Shakira had mentioned that she is working on the new album. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I already saw the account that posted that on Twitter as false, but I don't think it's false if the singer Shakira has never lied to us. I checked the account and it says Ash Mebarak, it doesn't say the official name of the Shakira account, so maybe the Ash Mebarak account is fake. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely existing is not a reason to keep a page. If you remove the background, there is nothing left that cannot be discussed in a single sentence at Shakira#Career. WP:NMUSIC has a very low threshold for inclusion and this article doesn't satisfy it mainly because it is an article that is based on rumors. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the information in the article can change frequently depending on the news, but for this reason the page should not be deleted because obviously the new Shakira album that it announces must be true. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that you are a new editor. Because of that, you do not seem to understand how the English Wikipedia works. We don't create articles that are based on allegations. Shakira hasn't mention this album exists. Sony Latin has not say this album exists. The WP:BURDEN of the sources discussing the album relies on a image that can be created by any person with Photoshop. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: regardless of whether it's fake or not, I see zero coverage of this album. Shakira is a huge star; if she had actually announced a new album, every pop music publication would have an article on it already. The lack of reliable publications (and not some random Twitter account) writing about this means there should be no article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pure speculation, zero coverage of this album. ItsMario97 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think it's necessary to delete the page, if what Sony Music Latin has published about Shakira's new album is true, then it has to be obvious because record companies don't lie. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saúl Rodrigo Martínez: "Record companies never lie, let's just trust them". Record companies are well known for outright lying about how many copies their artists' albums have sold. They inflate numbers all the time. They've engaged in payola, and engage in shady things around artists they want to protect. How many years did R. Kelly's record label protect him while receiving reports of what he was doing and has now been convicted for? Be real. Ss112 08:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No official, reliable confirmation exists. Ss112 08:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete - best case scenario it is WP:TOOSOON for this article. Worst case, it's a hoax of sorts. Either way, it's premature to have this article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the title, tracklist, or even the near-future existence of a new album from a superstar like Shakira were real, we would get it from far more reliable sources than the hacks who are talking about "Deseo Inherente". Nobody anywhere in the reliable media has reported on this. The story is probably clickbait to generate money for online shysters; let's not contribute to that here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a hoax to me. I assume the page is being used to present reliability in some sort of scam (e.g, selling the album on a third-party website). ImperialMajority (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi how are things? I hope it's all okay. Well, regarding the article, I already checked the references and there are some that refer to Shakira's new album, also I don't think it seems false, probably without revealing it Shakira could have told Sony Music Latin that this will be the name of her new album and that will be the tracklist, so I don't think the article is misleading. Luis William Hernández García (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here I also participate in this consultation in case you need any help from me, but I hope you understand me. Luis William Hernández García (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, please take the time to learn more about how Wikipedia works. It does not matter if you checked the sources currently in the article, because those sources are unreliable, and they are either created by scammers or they are gullible gossip sites that repeat scammers. It also does not matter that Shakira "could have" told the record company about her future album. Here we need solid evidence that she DID really do that. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I'm telling you that the singer may have told Sony Music Latin about her new album Deseo Inherente without revealing it in a video or viralizing it on networks. Luis William Hernández García (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not helpful to guess what "may have" happened. You can only use what reliable sources can confirm happened. You can guess what happened all day long, it won't help you save a Wikipedia article from deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have little to add to what has already been elaborated above. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2023 (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 as a blatant hoax. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC) The WordsmithTalk to me 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club

Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club (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)

PROMO for a motorcycle club. Written like an advertisement. I don't find any sources we can use, beyond various mentions in social media or the like. Perhaps a good social cause, but nothing we can use for GNG either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: This page has just been reviewed. GyanKnow contributions?
  • Delete as the entire article has no references. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy as hoax, the references listed at the bottom of the page appear to each be fakes, with the "We Shall Not Be Moved: Desegregation at the University of Georgia" citation being particularly glaring as it's not even clear how that would be related to the article content. See this ongoing ANI discussion for more investigation, as it appears that this and other articles are the product of ChatGPT or similar software. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sooppy Narikkatteri

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

Non-notable politician/political person. Not meeting GNG, being the president of some local clubs or associations isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Reference
404 1. The Hindu[dead link]
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth Madhyamam" . www.madhyam.com . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ "Failure to fund plan of local bodies" . Kerala Kaumudi Daily . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
404 4. ^ e-governance[dead link]
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ Desk, Web. "State-level Panchayat Day celebrations to begin today" . Sirajlive.com . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ "Nedumpana in Kollam wins trophy for best panchayat in State". The Hindu. 19 February 2011. Retrieved 26 March 2023 – via www.thehindu.com.
404 7. ^ Kerala farm labourers get monthly salary[dead link]
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 8. ^ "Panchayat fund to be increased by up to 10 per cent from next financial year: Chief Minister" . Sirajlive.com . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 9. ^ "Government will give all encouragement to cruise activities: Minister KT Jalil" . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth Madhyamam". www.madhyam.com. 29 November 2020. Retrieved 26 March 2023.
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 11. ^ "Nadapuram turns a new leaf". The Hindu. 25 October 2015. Retrieved 26 March 2023 – via www.thehind
The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.
BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  17:49, 2 April 2023 (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. Aoidh (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Zalla

Christopher Zalla (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 film person. All sources found are PR links, nothing extensive in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep- He is very notable he wrote and directed a grand Jury prize winner at Sundance and two of the PR links you mention are not PR links the New York Times and ArtForum . Would you please be considerate enough to follow the links first before presenting a catch all argument like that.
I will put in many more links momentarily. Plus the Law and Order episode he directed. There is nothing wrong with proposing am article for deletion there is something awry about doing it without flushing out the points of departure first.Strattonsmith (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG KEEP here as well : Director Christopher Zalla not only won the grand jury prize at Sundance. He earlier won the best director prize at that festival, making him among the festival's most cherished alums. Also, this new release Radical is slated to be among this year's huge hits. More, both that and his earlier film Padre Nuestra are among the most mainstreamed American films to be produced in exclusively in Spanish. This is very significant. To delete, frankly, feels a tad unwoke. JackthePelican (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is JackthePelican's sole contribution to Wikipedia, so far. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article does indeed have an infobox now.Strattonsmith (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @SuperSharanya (talk) This person just put in the infobox. The lack of independent sources argument kind editor is just not true, the references here include 2 New York Times pieces, ArtForum, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and many more. please peruse the sources one by one and see if that statement holds. Many kind thanks and wishes Strattonsmith (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - News Flash: Adding more independent sources just added the San Antonio Current and metacritic. [26] [27] Strattonsmith (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film reviews that aren't about him? We need articles that discuss the person. Simply getting mentioned in the New York Times is wonderful, but we require an article about the individual, not a "name drop". Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well to start the HolLywood Rporter piece does that [28] and there are several interviews which talk to him in depth and I do not believe that they can all be classified as PR pieces... If you are going to take on this argument which you have I do think it is your onus to investigate the links rather than just saying what they are. For my part I will search out and employ more sources that talk about him specifically.. I am about to write the page for the movie Radical which has a list of 29 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes but my eye is strained this conversation has pushed me optically as far as I can go. I regret that I have but one set of eyeballs to give to wikipedia to feel my skills are engaged use them or loose them as opposed to the cyclops who had but one eyeball to give to Odysseus in order that he would forever remain part of the storyline,Strattonsmith (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what any of that means. We need articles about the person, not a mention in whatever website you have. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a caption under a photo, the article isn't about this person. Mentions and small listings like this don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Collaterally the whole thing adds up he not only directed the films he wrote them the films are very notable he is the creator of two prize winning films the second as you can read is about to break you are not trying to work with me you are trying to take every last detail and prosecute the case because that's how you see yourself in the Stanford Prison Experiment scenario here. So you argue that there is no notability which is clearly not the case from the legions of articles it comes down because you use your power to take it down and then ten more magazines publish articles and the film as you can tell from the reviews and the audience award is bound to be a hit and somebody else rewrites it and what did you prove that you can argue to have it taken down that happens over and over and over again here except in this case he is very clearly already notable. So you run my engines just so you could to drive a point which is only that you win a momentary battle. You need to read everyone of those articles because you are misrepresenting the facts. There are 29 articles on "Radica" itself alone and I will keep posting until this is proven . Plus he did a lifetime movie and two episodes of Law and Order which in of themselves does not make him single handedly notable but the acclaimed films written and directed by do. Strattonsmith (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fixed the header of this AfD, which was broken by extraneous text. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - The newspaper and Latino media posts have in depths reports the San Antonio Curren the Utah Review there is the in depth coverage widespread across different media titles everything from articles in Mexican American centers of population to big city national newspapers to entertainment magazines like variety and the Hollywood Reporter the coverage is broad based. Strattonsmith (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I wasn't originally going to weigh in on this as I have little interest in the film world, but the WP:BLUDGEON being put forward by the 'keep' !voter isn't based on policy at all. Yelling "VERY STRONG KEEP" and posting over and over doesn't count as six !votes. The argument seems to be WP:CRYSTAL, i.e. that this individual is about to release a film that's about to be huge and about to attract significant coverage of him and his work, so don't delete the article now. The article should be deleted, and if this future film comes out and gives this person significant coverage, the article can be created again and actually referenced this time. Flip Format (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film has been screened and reviewed and it is referenced from those events having occurred, Strattonsmith (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Flip Format (talk) The argument about the film which has already premiered perhaps yes I overstated which was out of frustration because I should not have reacted having felt that the sources are multifold and it is being said they were something they are not all PR in totality from the onset of this discussion. That said the film about to be a hit should not be the reason and I would strike that you are correct. The very strong keep was another user there are not six votes there are two votes and comments. There are the prior films to the one which I overstated there are many sources. I will apologize for the overstatement I do not want to use that word bludgeon though the Crystal is apt. The later is not the main argument the directive employs it was part of overdoing it. I just could not fathom that some editors were saying there was not proper coverage when there is. Thank you and I will try to not get carried away. The coverage of his first film the Grand jury Prize winner and the second theatrical release together is significant .
What I should have done was just have left it as a simple analysis though I think I do now impart a solid argument and let subsequent voters decide for themselves which is correct. But please if voting peruse the links , the references, the sources.
Thank you for hearing me out. Strattonsmith (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The rationale and WP:BLUDGEON by a couple keep voters is not grounded in actual WP:NOTABILITY WP:GNG policy pertaining to subjects of this type. Right now I am inclined to push for deletion because I don’t see any compelling policy based argument to keep, but will do my own independent search for evidence of notability first. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article has been refbombed with bare URLS, but these are all promo, brief mentions in articles about other subjects, interviews, etc. Discussion above shows nothing here meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that helps meeting GNG or BIO, just more of the same. None of the Keep votes show sources or base their comments in policy or guidelines. But policy is clear: BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of lack of sources supporting subject's independent notability, sources adequate in number and appropriate content. There is just a plethora of citations that simply does not withstand scrutiny. Try as I might, I could not find enough support for this text to merit article status. Some forensics:
  • The Film Maker link contains interviews with all participants in Sundance 2007; you're in Sundance, you get interviewed. The Columbia University link is even more generic: it's a list of all Columbia alumni making it to Sundance; you're an alumnus, you get mentioned. The archived link to IFC is a simple list of the 2009 Independent Spirit Awards nominations, with a single mention of our subject. The San Antonio Current link takes us to a routine presentation of films then currently screened in the city, with one movie from our subject among them. Then, we get a New York Times report "in brief" about 3 new movies out and about, one of which is, again, directed by Zalla. One more interview of Zalla and actor Eugenio Derbez in an IndiWire link. (For interviews, see here & here.) Then, Salt Lake Magazine reviews all Sundance films including one by Zalla.
  • More of the same: A Yahoo Money link lists all 2023 Sundance Film Festival awards, with our subject name-dropped once, exactly what the ArtForum link and a MetaCritic link about "Worse & Best" also do. There's a report from Texas Monthly about many films ("El Paso–born wrestler Cassandro, Edinburg High School mariachis, a Matamoros teacher") and in there one film by Zalla is presented. This link takes us to an article about film editor Eugenio Richer, including an interview of him; Zalla does get mentioned. We, then, get an interview with actor Eugenio Derbez, in which Zalla is mentioned. The remainder of invoked sources is worse: The Rotten Tomatoes listing; etc.
  • In sum: We can find many reviews of one or two films of our subject artist, such as here, here, here - but not here from a blog. The films themselves could possibly, albeit barely, make it into Wikipedia. But this does not make their creator notable as such.
Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST: Is he "regarded as an important figure"? Has he "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? I find no evidence for any of this. Still, I sincerely wish for a future inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2023 (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 determined by viewing the discussion through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the comments by editors that cited sourcing issues were not addressed or rebutted in a way that shows that notability would or could be met. Aoidh (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Krystal Dawn Steadman

Murder of Krystal Dawn Steadman (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 seeing notability beyond the incident. Using sources from the 1980s to cover an event that happened in 2000 seems like a stretch, somewhat OR. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at what I was referring to, the 80s events weren't of the murder, but of the killers' pasts. Any other concerns? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's a murdered girl whose death impacted and united communities across the region. She deserves a page, let alone written and finalized the right way in consideration for her. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who else is a part of the discussion and decision-making? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need extensive coverage of the event, showing lasting notability. Not that someone was killed 20 yrs ago; this isn't a memorial website. Everyone is involved in the decision making process here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note there is no coverage of the event in Gbooks, Gnews, the NYT or Jstor. Doesn't seem to have gathered any sort of attention past the event itself. No one "deserves" an article in wikipedia, this isn't a memorial or a feel-good website. I'm not sure how having a site "in consideration" of her advances the goals of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources still making memorial pages for Krystal today, and I reiterate, she's had lasting impacts. Did you not see what I wrote about the legal advocacy in the aftermath section? It doesn't take other major sites noticing for the site to be benefited, and users and viewers are naturally going to find the article, likely add more sources even than I could find, and prove she's still remembered. What's next, saying little happens in Nevada, so that's a de facto disqualification? Or that the Los Angeles Times doesn't count, it's no affiliate or something? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I excluded Facebook links for obvious reasons. Does that account for something? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested if it happens in Nevada or not, it's the coverage the matters. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been plenty of coverage, including of effects from the crimes carrying on through the years. It's not confirmed yet, but I can add there are Cold Case and SVU episodes inspired by the crime. Would that help? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I'm not completely suggesting that to save the page, but because crime fans have already made connections and would like to follow up with confirmations. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too much finite detail about what seems to be an average crime, along with a WP:COATRACK about a memorial and its overall status, with both aspects well violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL (and SVU is known to fictionalize aspects of each crime so they aren't a carbon copy, and most of all it's a fictional television series). The detail about the memorial is also a POV violation. Wikipedia is not the appropriate site or use case for this type of article, and I will not go in the same response loop as Oaktree is stuck in. My vote! is final unless more compelling sources come up. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm for the first time, and to my surprise, hearing about the no memorial policy, but I wasn't meaning the page like that even! This is an encyclopedia after all, I was communicating a horrific death of an innocent child, a community who came together to honor her, and even preceding history people didn't circulate widely. That's educational and vital! I'd hope her family and friends would like the right narrative especially. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read our policy about a neutral point of view immediately; your writing must be not only well-sourced, but neutral. Nate • (chatter) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mind clarifying to me what violations you're finding in that policy so I can clarify I don't mean it that way and/or correct myself? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We try not to accuse people of things here and to discuss things neutrally, not favoring one point of view over another. Simply report the facts. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I write that sounds opinionated? I'm at a loss here! I actually went over my text a couple times and rewrote things the news articles didn't specify more on so I'd be impartial. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this would do better as a section about the main rapist (Sorias Sr.) by what the article seems to imply, he was quite a prolific rapist. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this note reaches you. I don't have enough information on the rapes, because Krystal's murder got the most attention. I could easily put Soria, Sr. (no "s" at the end), in list of serial rapists, as I've been expanding that list for a while now. But as for renaming and changing the format of the article, I'm open to it, but I hope we can discuss a plan for that. An agreed plan between everyone wanting to work through this well with each other. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might have to dig below the surface on Sorias, do you know the victim amount, or is it overexaggerated. I feel as there would be some documentation on him considering that these rapes seemed to have occurred at the start of the dot-com bubble, which would provoke at least some internet discussion and reliable sources to pop up about the other rapes. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 21:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One news article speaks of the father's account, but only the father's account. There are likely more local news reports, which are difficult to find. There are otherwise memorials, social media posts, etc., less credible resources. As for the other rapes, the news reports only say so much. But one of my links leads to a review on a book based on the crimes, which wasn't reviewed well. Where I got much of my information. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who would like to continue the discussion? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're fine thanks. I'm still not seeing this as notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty much over, sadly this page is going to get deleted probably, Steadman's murder is sadly just a run-of-the-mill rape and murder. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 15:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not run-of-the mill! Why are we looking for a tabloid headline here?! When she died, a community was traumatized and even divided for years, THAT'S noteworthy! ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Gurdwara of San Francisco

Sikh Gurdwara of San Francisco (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 gurdwara written like a advertisement I wanted to PROD it but it had a speedy deletion in the past Qwv (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Sikhism, United States of America, and California. Qwv (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - a run of the mill local religious denomination. There doesn't appear to be a notable historic building they are located in either. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. NGEO points to GNG for structure. No sources in article or above show SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets GNG. Cleaned unsourced promo material.  // Timothy :: talk  20:23, 2 April 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs in Belgium

AfDs for this article:
Arabs in Belgium (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 article is based on a problematic issue. It claims that "Arab Belgians ... are Belgians whose ancestry traces back to the Arab World". This is false, as many people who come from the Arab World do not identify as Arabs. 20% of the Libyan population and 30% of the Moroccan population are Berbers, for example. This article includes Lubna Azabal, whose ancestry is Berber, and the vast majority of examples provide no sources to say that these people (all BLPs) are "Arabs". Moroccans in Belgium is more precise and already exists, and this article duplicates most of it. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, and Belgium. Qwv (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete energetically. Per nom.—Alalch E. 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly. Per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have removed anything that has nothing to do with the Arabs and clarified some things. You should take a look at this too Berbers in Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is possible to keep the text, but you have to remove almost everything, only the first and third paragraph would remain. The text has another problem: it mentions mosques, but Islam is not synonymous with Arab, and there may even be people whose ancestry is completely Belgian and have converted to Islam. Jvbignacio9 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since this has such a strong connection to BLPs strong consideration should be paid to whether this inclusion category is well defined enough per WP:PRECISE and nom arguements to have an article. Is its content or history in the article that is worth keeping if it was renamed and/or the inclusion criteria/lead changed to reflect a more WP:PRECISE criteria (if so exactly what is that content worth saving)? Again the strong connection to BLPs should be a main factor in considering all this; the number of BLPs that have been removed from the article and the nom show (as well as the recent ANI [30] related to all this) the article has a nebulous and unclear criteria.  // Timothy :: talk  02:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the population figures include non-Arabs, the content about the Arab European League is covered by Arab European League and the information about mosques at Islam in Belgium#Religious infrastructure and Great Mosque of Brussels, and removing that would leave nothing apart from a contentious BLP list. If anyone finds good sources on Arabs in Belgium as a topic, I'm open to changing my mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others above, and possibly merge somewhere if the text needs to be preserved. CycloneYoris talk! 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the nom's concerns.Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 3 April 2023 (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! 06:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Tam (artist)

Ho Tam (artist) (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 artist, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for artists. The notability claim here is essentially that he and his work exist, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- notability is not passed just by verifying that a person exists, but by showing evidence of significance, such as noteworthy art awards and/or the reception of enough third-party coverage and analysis about his work to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability.
But the three footnotes here consist of a "staff" profile on the self-published website of a gallery he's been directly affiliated with, one article from a smalltown community hyperlocal about one show at one non-notable local gallery in that small town, and one short blurb in a limited-circulation magazine. So the gallery profile isn't support for notability at all, while the two media sources are okay but don't add up to enough to pass GNG all by themselves.
Further, this was initially created by hijacking an existing redirect that was already in place linking to a politician of unquestionably greater notability, following which both this and the other person were moved again to disambiguated titles without any RM discussion to establish any sort of consensus that the artist's notability was actually comparable to the politician's.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just two hits of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article is badly sourced, but after googling is clear that the artist is notable. Will add review in Artforum, and collections in a minuteHermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article has been greatly improved since the deletion notice, with new sources including publications by independent scholars and galleries, and mentions of Tam's work in institutional collections and university archives. Ccshzhou (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The artist has multiple artists books in the National Gallery of Canada, which confers notability. Fixed duplicate listings in wikidata so that authority control data appears. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much improved during this deletion discussion, notable and well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The artist's artists books are collected by major institutions in the New York City region as well, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Watson Library; the Museum of Modern Art's library; as well as the Whitney Museum of American Art's library. This confers the artist's notability reaching beyond Canada. WinifredSandersonLee (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2023 (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 . Salvio giuliano 19:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tacuara Records

Tacuara Records (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 on an Argentine record label with no notable releases (not one of the more important indie labels per WP:NMUSIC) and no sources showing WP:SIGCOV either. I found no hits on this record label in Google News, Google Books, ProQuest, Newspaper Archive or newspapers.com. All I can find are the usual non-WP:RS like Bandcamp, SoundCloud, Discogs and Instagram, which do not confer notability. I also can't see why Abbey Road Studios is deemed to be a similar subject in the 'see also' section. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 17:38, 26 March 2023 (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 List of Mortal Kombat characters. Salvio giuliano 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stryker (Mortal Kombat)

Stryker (Mortal Kombat) (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)

One of my favorites back in the day but unfortunately no longer meets notability. He hasn't been playable in twelve years, and there's next to no third-party coverage of him other than the same old "worst MK character!" rigamarole. Like the other AfDs, merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters: Doesn't show independent notability. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To List of Mortal Kombat characters, an unnecessary split from the parent list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge: To List of Mortal Kombat characters. One of the few AFDs for Mortal Kombat characters I can get behind. And on one I personally created 11 years ago, no less. Maybe he would have had a chance if he was playable in MKX or MK11, particularly if he was DLC, but he wasn't. The coverage he has at Anime News Network is pretty good (which was since removed from the article, for some reason), and I'm not completely anti-listicle like some editors are, but I'm not seeing much in these listicles. So that's only one good source. That said, I have no prejudice towards reaction should more coverage on him pops up in the future. MoonJet (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters While this is a good article, the subject isn't notable enough. Also, could you list some of the "other AfDs" you're referring to? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Over the past five months we’ve had a bit of a fire sale with MK characters who no longer meet notability requirements for individual articles, mostly due to lack of significant coverage or few playable appearances. So far it’s Motaro, Sheeva, Cyrax, Sektor, Rain, Skarlet, Sindel, and just recently Baraka, Shinnok, Kabal, and Smoke. Jade may join the crowd soon as she is currently up for AfD. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The sourcing doesn't meet notability, but there is an obvious merge target to preserve some information. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am not a fan of the constant nominations of MK characters recently, and I'm not even a MK fan, but they just are not notable. At all. I just wish the nominations were spaced out more. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After this and Jade, I think we’ll be done for awhile. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After the Goro AfD, which is the last minor character at the afd right now. Giving more time for Quan Chi and Noob Saibot article to be improve. GlatorNator (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GlatorNator: I do suggest a Noob Saibot and Quan Chi AfD. Saibot has one good piece of significant coverage (the Polygon piece), but that alone is not sufficient for WP:GNG. Quan Chi doesn't seem to have any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be nominating MK articles for awhile. Don't want any potential drama like on Beemer69 talkpage. But, I hope you will. Only if you can. GlatorNator (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately all arguments in favor of keeping are emotionally motivated. These articles were all split in the past by fans, when that really shouldn't have been done. This isn't about having a vendetta about some series and anyone who says so is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. But I will gladly do so if you don't wish to have too much attention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Hansen SebastianTalk 17:13, 1 April 2023 (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 List of Mortal Kombat characters. Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jade (Mortal Kombat)

Jade (Mortal Kombat) (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)

Like Smoke, her only contribution to the MK series after three decades is being the BFF of a more notable character. There's not enough noteworthy reception out there to hang on to the article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:21, 26 March 2023 (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 Konami games. Salvio giuliano 19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Combat

World Combat (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 came to copy edit this article, and discovered it was almost entirely a game guide. It's completely unreferenced, and I can't find anything about it beyond simple directory listings. —Torchiest talkedits 16:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine 2 University

Constantine 2 University (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, lacks notability. Pizzahut69 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2023 (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'm closing this early as a Keep as there is no support for Deletion and the nominator was identified as a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Van Hulle

Rene Van Hulle (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. ImperialMajority (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (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. Salvio giuliano 19:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado

2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado (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 tornado isn't notable enough just yet. Plus, we barely have any information on the tornado's rating (since it's preliminary), and this article was created by the same guy who made the January 24 outbreak article which was sent to AfD. Poodle23 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just not ready yet Infinity (talk - contributions) 16:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – what nom and Elijahandskip just said. Tails Wx 17:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Too early. Maybe later, but not yet. ChessEric 18:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No since in doing this now. United States Man (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only two sources and seemingly more inexplicably concerned with retail store damage rather than fatalities. Needs a complete rewrite in draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 21:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's early for this article, we should wait till we get more info. Besides there's already a section in the article about the outbreak it was in, with almost the same info as this article. Plus, we're getting premin. info from the damage survey. Just Merge the article till we get more info to justify an article.--Halls4521 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I just wrote up the section for this tornado and I can tell you that there is no need for an article. ChessEric 23:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is also an RFC ongoing that the section might be too long. As for the article, redirect per WP:ATD. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        That has already been resolved. ChessEric 19:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Salvio giuliano 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bonar

Brian Bonar (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 BLP of a business executive is poorly sourced. Does not meet WP:GNG. Thesixserra (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (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 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations

Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. The article has been tagged for notability for a year now, which seems to be based only in a July 2021 Reuters article. Since then, there have not been any significant developments regarding the group (including the endorsement of UN resolutions), and as an unofficial group it lacks significance. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There seem to have been plenty of announcements and updates in 2022, including this secretary general message, and there are 7 Google scholar mentions now featuring the group's name. The last source already featured on the page is from March 2023. It's a little light on secondary news coverage, but it's an extant UN group with a large volume of mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that it is a grouping of states makes it a lot more significant than a grouping of individuals with the same amount of coverage would be. Also, none of the 20 member states are English-speaking, so it is likely that coverage is more extensive in those other languages. There is plenty of activity at https://www.gof-uncharter.org/blank-1 that is likely to have received press coverage. Zerotalk 00:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Zero0000. I searched in Chinese and found lots of sources (here are some: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]). I suspect there might be sources in some of the other languages used by member countries. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above.  // Timothy :: talk  20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2023 (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 Black Clover characters#Yuno Grinberryall. Salvio giuliano 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Grinberryall

Yuno Grinberryall (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)

Copied from Fandom, which should be CC-licensed. Searches online do not reveal any reliable sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to the anime/manga. This WP:FANCRUFT belongs on Fandom, not Wikipedia. Zero reception/analysis, just a plot summary.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:05, 27 March 2023 (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. Salvio giuliano 18:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Min Than (footballer)

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

Aware of challenge of sourcing in Myanmar, but there's barely a claim to notability here let alone evidence thereof. A BEFORE shows nothing else to add from RS Star Mississippi 13:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see anything besides routine coverage, doesn't meet GNG. Feel free to ping if more sources are found. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2023 (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 . Salvio giuliano 18:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey

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

I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet notability. Lots of mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ystalyfera transmitting station

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

Another small television relay station, fails WP:GNG. No sources cited, external links just go to general lists of such relay stations. There are many thousands of these in the world and WP:NOTDIR of radio transmitters and frequencies. See:

for rationale and precedent. Flip Format (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2023 (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. I will note that, during this AfD, GMA Regional TV News was created as a redirect Salvio giuliano 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regional TV News

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

Another contested redirect. Right now there are zero independent, reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Would have restored the redirect, but that's no longer an option. Onel5969 TT me 10:26, 26 March 2023 (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 Minecraft#Gameplay as an WP:ATD Salvio giuliano 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enderman

AfDs for this article:
Enderman (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)

Zero real-world notability. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Would have redirected, but that is no longer an option since the redirect was challenged. Onel5969 TT me 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (restore redirect) as a non-notable video game character failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. There are some random sources like [45], but not enough to write an encyclopedic article. There are a ton of source that mention the mob, but none are in-depth or focused on the mob itself. Especially, not something usable for WP:WAF. As it stands, it's WP:ALLPLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Minecraft#Gameplay - simply not enough significant coverage. However, it is absolutely a believable search term and the redirect it formerly as should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. As far as real world relevance goes this character doesn't qualify for its own article. It is very relevant to minecraft though, so we should redirect it. Blitzfan51 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough, however I do think that an article including a list of Minecraft mobs should be created. If such an article existed, I would propose this be merged with that one, however as no such article currently exists, I am voting for delete. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability ImperialMajority (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) sock strike ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – Lacks SIGCOV, and the only source in the article being a user-generated wiki is telling as to its notability. DecafPotato (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm above. I did a search for more detailed sources and only found Wikis that really covered it in the level of detail needed for it to be kept. Nomader (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, Wikis aren't reliable sources which seems like it's all that's there. If people really want to know more about the Enderman they can go to the unofficial official Minecraft Wiki. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. 2001:4455:6F5:7C00:A44E:A2CB:D9FA:3431 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm fairly sure this is notable. --2007Gtbot (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To claim something is notable, you have to show how it satisfies WP:GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:46, 2 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 00:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Medina de los Santos

Juan Pablo Medina de los Santos (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)

Unclear notability, old person and father of two politicians. I can't find mentions of him, even less reason to see why he merits an article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 08:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Campbell Gallery

Berry Campbell Gallery (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)

Art gallery doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - in-depth coverage is largely in non-independent sources such as interviews of articles based on press releases. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more with a more in-depth search. SilverserenC 21:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately those references are not very independent - the first one is mostly based on an interview with the founders, and a large portion of the second was written by the gallery. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. Prior to nominating it for deletion, on 25 February 2023, MrsSnoozyTurtle attempted to draftify it. Two editors advised her that the subject was notable. The next day, she left a note on my Talk page accusing me of sockpuppetry. When I asked what prompted the communication, she refused to answer. For the record I have only ever edited from this account.

On 23 January 2023 the subject of the article was connected to Wikidata item Q116312206. This alerted me to the existence of the Wikidata project. Since then I have been studying it so I can contribute to the knowledge graph around the artists of 20th century modernism. The galleries are crucial for historical and knowledge-graph reasons, as they maintain exhibition records, indicate what artists are affiliated, and (its use for commercial purposes notwithstanding) produce important scholarship like the material that MrsSnoozyTurtle seems to be disdaining above as "press releases." (I assume "interviews of articles based on press releases" is a typo.) Recommendation is keep. ImmovableObject (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:50, 26 March 2023 (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! 05:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Dockter

Hans Dockter (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 businessman, only sources found are PR links. Being a member of the Forbes council (as sourced in the article) is also not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles municipal election returns

List of Los Angeles municipal election returns (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:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST; list of election returns which doesn't have much notability about the list itself nor has an explanation of the elections. Most of the sources are mainly from the Los Angeles Times and are just the election returns that happen every election. I feel like if the data were to be used somehow, it could be spun off into separate articles (e.g. 2022 Los Angeles elections), be put into the politician's articles (under "Electoral history"), or be put into the district articles (under "Electoral results", much like Congressional articles). reppoptalk 05:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:30, 26 March 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 00:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Brault

Marc Brault (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unreferenced stub for 15 years. Those arguing for keep should list actual sources as per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. There is some coverage for someone involved in a roofing company but unsure if it's the same person. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:28, 26 March 2023 (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. After three full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular outcome has ensued herein. North America1000 08:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snak the Ripper

AfDs for this article:
Snak the Ripper (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 a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This person is a direct associate of Caspian who's also up for AFD, and was of course created by the same user (bolstering the existing suspicions of a direct conflict of interest) -- and while there's a potentially stronger notability claim here as a Western Canadian Music Award nominee, that's only a regional award and not a national one that would confer an "inherent" notability pass under NMUSIC #8, so it would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but isn't highly notable enough to exempt him from having to be well-sourced just because the article has the word "award" in it.
The other attempted notability claim here is that a song did well on the iTunes charts, but that's a single-vendor WP:BADCHART that does not pass NMUSIC's charting criterion -- notability because charting attaches only to IFPI certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, not individual online music stores.
But the referencing here isn't cutting it at all, depending far too heavily on blogs and directory entries with not nearly enough properly reliable coverage in real media shown.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations site where people are entitled to have Wikipedia articles at their own personal demand. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just a note for anyone who wants to go looking that you might find something looking for Stealth Bomb Records. I didn't find anything helpful but I really did only the barest search. -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG with SIGCOV in numerous outlets on the first two pages of Google News. straight.com [46], sootoday.com [47], Nanaimo News Bulletin [48], Hip-hop Canada [49] Also, I think the nom has the wrong COI claim. User EthanWiki does not appear to be a COI at all, however, we do have contributions from user SnakTheRipper, who has only edited this article and who is blocked. Regardless, GNG is met, SNGs are therefore irrelevant. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More coverage here in Vice [50]. Overall, this subject is much more notable than during the 2010 AfD, with a lot of coverage about a beef with Madchild around 2015 that can be added to the article. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty much a textbook fail of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO to boot. Sourcing is a mess of blogs and editorially questionable fansites, there's no evidence of "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." and it's at that first and most basic test that we fall. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not looking specifically at sources in the article. We're looking at if they EXIST, and I have provided 5 sources that I feel can be used to meet GNG. Can you please comment on those? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 11:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources are hyper-local and I can't see they amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources". The Vice mention is a passing mention specifically about 'the beef that’s erupted between Madchild and Snak the Ripper' and I cannot see how having beef with Madchild is evidence of an enduring impact on the world of music. Quite apart from WP:GNG, we also have some beef meeting the subject specific guidelines, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." I'd also appreciate keeping the discussion here and off my talk page. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG mentions nothing about sources being local or not, so we can't discredit based on that. Your assessment of Vice is fair. I'm not entertaining complaints about the SNG if we can meet GNG. GNG's text says Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 12:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly don't have a rule that local sources are forbidden, but we do have a rule that purely local coverage isn't enough to pass GNG if it's virtually all that a person actually has. Local newspapers cover local figures in contexts that don't meet an encyclopedic standard of notability all the time — candidates in city council elections, presidents of local parent-teacher associations, high school athletes, local bands playing at local pubs, and on and so forth — so that level of coverage isn't necessarily enough to get a person over GNG all by itself. GNG isn't just "count the sources and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number" — GNG does take into account the notability or non-notability of the context of what any given source is covering the person for, and discounts some sources as not helping to build notability if they aren't covering the person in notable contexts. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; touring and shows have recieved some press[51][52][53][54]. Other additional sources, such as those from Exclaim![55] and The Chronicle-Journal[56], when combined with the above sourcing, pushes the subject past GNG imo. I see coverage spanning from 2010[57] until 2022[58]. Mbdfar (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete never had a charted single, no releases on a major record brand. I don't think the sources above are enough for wp:music #1. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. General coverage clearly exists and has been posted above. If the sourcing in the article is bad or if the article is promotional, then fix it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to add to the discussion, there appears to be some consensus emerging for keeping the article on the basis of WP:SIGCOV by independent WP:RS, while concurrently there is a consensus that perhaps the available sources and coverage fall short of meeting WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Something that should definitely be taken into account is whether the sources have merit as significant coverage. I would suggest that if the sources don’t meet that standard, then the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY. If they do have merit as significant coverage, however, the article should be kept due to the subject’s notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the problem, because the sources presented above are the same sources as those already in the article and that there search of Exclaim! - a blog/website with no editorial oversight I can see, curated by 'Ontario Creates' is neither a WP:RS or even carries WP:SIGCOV (three video links, a tour announcement and a short review of 'Sex Machine'). Now if we're calling Hip Hop Canada or the Sarajevo Times RS, then the Hip Hop Canada piece is that self same tour announcement and the 2015 Sarajevo Times piece calls Snak famous because he was '2nd on the Hip Hop list of iTunes for three weeks' and is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website. And then there's the Vernon Morning Star piece - an interview in a hyper-local paper with the subject's promoter. So I really can't see an argument to support WP:GNG passing RS OR SIGCOV!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth Exclaim! is listed at WP:RSMUSIC and does have an editorial team([59]). Also "Sarajevo Times piece ... is sourced to 'Klix', a Bosnian website" - Sarajevo Times is also a Bosnian publication. Sarajevo is in Bosnia. What's wrong with Bosnia? Mbdfar (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the sources presented both in the article and during this discussion for reliability, independence, and depth of coverage of this subject would be very helpful in determination of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If I don't have a source assessment table up by the end of Tuesday (UTC -4), please ping me. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 14:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - wait a minute, subject charted on the Canadian Albums Chart with two different albums.[60] Chart specifically listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. Subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. Mbdfar (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I agree with Thebiguglyalien (talk), general coverage clearly exists and the right thing to do is fix the “problem”, if it needs fixing. I’ve removed a non RS, improved the lede, added a citation from Red Deer Advocate, a daily newspaper in Alberta, Canada established in 1901, and will continue to help improve the page.Dfj0719 (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I improve the writing on the page, added citations including HipHopDX which was acquired by Warner Music in Music Business Worldwide (MBW) is this quote “A STAND-ALONE EDITORIAL ENTITY WITH JOURNALISTIC INDEPENDENCE, HIPHOPDX IS BEING GIVEN INVESTMENT TO HELP GROW ITS PRESENCE IN ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES.” WARNER MUSIC GROUP SPOKESPERSON.Dfj0719 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Noisey is a brand of Vice MediaDfj0719 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/entertainment/lifestyle-change-leads-to-music-career-for-hip-hop-artist-snak-the-ripper/ Yes Yes Owned by Black Press ~ Based on an interview with the subject, but contains some secondary context ~ Partial
https://www.reddeeradvocate.com/local-entertainment/hip-hop-artist-encourages-fans-to-believe-in-themselves/ Yes Yes Also owned by Black Press Yes Significant secondary context with quotes from subject ✔ Yes
https://www.sootoday.com/local-entertainment/snak-the-ripper-is-feelin-the-love-on-the-road-679277 Yes Yes Owned by Village Media No Basically a concert advertisement, hodgepodging social media posts from the subject. ✘ No
https://hiphopcanada.com/snak-the-ripper-let-it-rip-album/ Yes Yes Yes Has SIGCOV of an album released by the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.chroniclejournal.com/entertainment/music_scene/snak-the-ripper-rises-from-the-dirt/article_4951f5ac-1d13-11e6-85d8-6bbf046386fa.html Yes Yes Owned by Continental Newspapers Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Red Deer Advocate and The Chronicle-Journal are enough on their own to pass GNG. Everything else at that point is just bonus content. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 18:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: would you like to adjust your !vote based on the information posted by Mbdfar regarding MUSICBIO? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a rough consensus that the sources mentioned do not show notability for the subject. Aoidh (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Media Group

AfDs for this article:
Indus Media 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)

Fails to meet WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH, article is promotional directory of the company's brands, nothing found in reliable sources, primary and unreliable, profile and directory listing sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources Business Recorder, Dawn, BizAsia, Pakistan Insider, and a few others are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. You can't ask better coverage than this for a media group in other rival media sources:(WP:NMEDIA). Though there is some unsourced content in the article to be removed. Insight 3 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NCORP is the right guideline as this is a media company, completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH and we don't if this company is still active as all of their tv channels are defunct now. Insight 3's refs analysis: Business Recorder article is a "news desk" report, Dawn article is a similar one - the article doesn't mention its author, insider.pk and bizasialive type sources are simply unreliable, not a WP:GNG standard source. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "News desk" simply means the report is prepared by several staff members, not that it is sponsored or paid content. Both Business Recorder and Dawn are reliable sources, so no reason to dismiss the sources (See RSN discussion on the matter). Insight 3 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreed with Insight 3 point here. It does have sufficient sources available. TheAnasKhan (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: assessment of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bizasialive.com/indus-to-launch-two-new-channels-by-year-end/ ? ? ~ Primary source ? Unknown
https://wn.com/indus_media_group/news No No No Company listing ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/728853 Yes Yes ~ ~ Partial
https://insider.pk/world/media/owns-pakistani-television-channels/ ? No No List of TV channels ✘ No
https://fp.brecorder.com/2007/03/20070303534629/ Yes Yes No Brief mention in channel's list ✘ No
https://pakwired.com/list-of-all-tv-channels-in-pakistan/ No No No Mention in TV channel's list ✘ No
http://gkaboom.tv.com.pk/ No No No Brief mention ✘ No
https://pakwired.com/list-of-all-tv-channels-in-pakistan/ No No No Mention in TV channel's list ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The initial comments leaned towards keeping the article on WP:GNG grounds, which were challenged by later comments. After the sources were discussed in-depth, there seems to be a rough consensus that the article does not meet WP:GNG, and the arguments that the article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NCORP appear to be largely unchallenged. Aoidh (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QWSTION

QWSTION (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)

Created by someone with a strong COI and was slipped through due to WP:APAT. Obviously a marketing article and has no place on Wikipedia. Its product, Bananatex (again very promotional), may meet the notabilitly criteria. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. SilverserenC 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that the references support notability. I have removed the images and some of the text as it was overly promotional. Gusfriend (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: clearly notable and no evidence of the claimed COI has been given. At least some of the images are worthy of keeping in the article, too (and that is being discussed on the its page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is well-sourced and meets WP:GNG. A reminder: accusations of COI need to be supported by evidence. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will share my analysis soon. But in case if it is kept then I would suggest to rename it to Qwstion (current one is a stylized title). US-Verified (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite from scratch as an actual encyclopaedic article, rather than the unambiguous advertisement it currently is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources posted here or in the article appear to be WP:NCORP sources. A product review doesn't make the company notable, that's NCORP 101. Does anyone have two NCORP sources... sources that are about the company, not reviews of one of its products? Levivich (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Levivich here. None of this stuff passes NCORP, and they are exactly the kind of sources that are why we have NCORP to explain what is significant coverage for companies and products. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about a non-notable company, failing WP:NCORP, seeing how not even a single source meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles about companies have to pass WP:ORGCRIT to meet GNG; they can't bypass these criteria. The sources used in the article are examples of trivial coverage, and/or are non-independent, and/or fail WP:INHERITORG as they deal primarily with the product, not primarily with the company. —Alalch E. 11:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly would be the depth required for CORPDEPTH, Alaich E.?
Founded in Zurich in 2008 on the principle that a good answer is the result of a good question, Qwstion has set itself the objective, through a timeless design, to focus on functionality and the use of sustainable materials.
With, in mind, bags. In backpack, tote or travel version. Unisex, in organic cotton or other ecological materials, they are designed as practical and versatile accessories, capable of being transformed into backpacks for riding a bike when leaving the office. All are developed in Zurich, and manufactured in Asia and Europe in accordance with high ethical and environmental standards.
After Zurich, Vienna and Copenhagen, it was in Lausanne that the brand opened its own store last month. This space of 4 meters high under ceiling is minimalist, to highlight the products and the descriptions of the creative process.
In addition to its own collections, the store displays a selection of products designed by brands that share the same requirements in terms of quality, sustainability and responsible production: the ready-to-wear brand Laboratoire, based in Lausanne; the Swedish wax producers Stutterheim; the casual wear Folk of London; A Kind of Guise, which produces a limited number of clothes in Germany; or the Zurich jewelry brands Kinsfolk and Soeder organic soaps, as well as the Raawii ceramics from Copenhagen and the writing tools from Y Studio, from Taiwan.
The Lausanne store also wants to serve as a promotion platform for local designers, in collaboration with the Ecole cantonale d'art de Lausanne (ECAL), where Qwstion's artistic director, Christian Paul Kägi, taught.
This is just one of the sources I presented above. SilverserenC 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's this. An announcement of a shop opening in Lausanne. Please see: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage --> standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ... of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops ... It is an example of trivial coverage. Also, please don't take this the wrong way, but you basically copivio'd that article by copying that large of a machine-translated portion of it here. —Alalch E. 17:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people copy text like that from articles before in discussions, as have I before and no one's brought it up, so I'm not sure if that's an issue, but I can remove it if you want.
Fair enough, what about the El Pais article covering the history of the company? That doesn't seem like routine coverage. Otherwise, literally all coverage of companies would fall under that definition. There's similar such coverage from NZZ Bellevue and 20 Minutes. SilverserenC 17:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those are promotional. They're all basically product reviews. None really go into any real depth about the company. Questions unanswered: who owns the company? How much in annual sales? What's year-over-year growth been like since its founding? What controversies or challenges has it encountered? (Notice how none of those articles say anything negative about the company at all.) Who are its main competitors? Who are its suppliers? Does it have any patents for its new technology? How many employees does it have? Levivich (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kägi and his fellow student Fabrice Aeberhard founded their company ten years ago together with Sebastian Kruit, Matthias Graf and Hannes Schoenegger.
Literally in the articles I linked. And, funny enough, if I keep reading down the article, I answer another of your questions:
The early success of the bags soon enabled the Qwstion team to develop their own textiles - with the organic cotton fabric, from which almost the entire production consists today, marking a first milestone around seven years ago.
The cotton is processed in a factory in Huizhou, not far from Hong Kong, which creates a good logistical starting point for international sales. Qwstion brought the network that the founding members brought with them from previous projects to China.
And further down I see:
The concepts and prototypes are created on Badenerstrasse in Zurich, which are then made ready for production in China.
And that's all just from one article. SilverserenC 17:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That first sentence says who founded it, not who owns it. Those are two different things. "The cotton is processed in a factory in Huizhou" doesn't say who their suppliers are, heck it doesn't even say what the source of the cotton is. What is "the network"? These quotes do not answer the questions I've posed. Still unknown: who owns it, how much in annual sales, year-over-year growth, controversies/challenges, competitors, suppliers, patents, how many employees. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Handelsblatt has some of this.. 25 employees in 2017, sales in single-digit-millions, largest external investor is Dieter Meier. "Qwstion sells its bags and accessories through its online shop, four of its own stores in Switzerland, Denmark and Austria, and over 200 retailers in 25 countries." That's some good company detail, some WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately, it's in a trade publication, so no WP:ORGIND. What we're looking for is two or more sources that have the CORPDEPTH of Handelsblatt and the ORGIND (and WP:AUD) of El Pais. They have to be in the same sources, and there have to be multiple sources like that. That's what makes WP:NCORP an intentionally tough bar to hit. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Conflict: I was about to bring up the Handelsblatt article. And it's not a trade publication, where are you getting that from? Handelsblatt is a newspaper, with a focus on business news. So like Bloomberg and Business Insider. But those aren't trade publications. SilverserenC 18:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider Bloomberg Businessweek (but not Bloomberg News), Business Insider, Handelsblatt, and other business newspapers, to be trade publications, like the American City Business Journals. These are publications that routinely promote new businesses. It's a form of churnalism. I might be wrong about Handelsblatt being in that group; I'm going off of our Wikipedia article, and that "Handelsblatt" means "commercial paper" in German. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their other publication, Wirtschaftswoche, would be more an example of what you're talking about. Handelsblatt, meanwhile, is more of a regular newspaper, just with a higher focus on economic news. Look at their front page. The prime articles right now are about the French protests and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The section options at the top include Politics, Technology, and Finance, among others. SilverserenC 18:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's almost all business news on their front page. The article about French protests is actually about France's economic policy (the headline: "How France benefits from Macron's reforms - and overtakes Germany: The President faces a lot of anger because of his pension reform. France is doing better economically than it has for a long time - thanks to Macron, say economists."). Yes, it has a live blog about the Ukraine war. But "Russian oligarch grabs Greek ports" is business news. "The federal government and the EU Commission settle disputes over combustion engines" is business news. That's the top 4 stories I see on their front page right now. Next I see three "Reader favorites": about investments, growth stocks, and real estate market. Next, "How Switzerland's business model is eroding". Next, "Credit gambled away: Why the banking crises don't end". Seems like business news.
Anyway, even if we agree that this is one NCORP source, which I really don't, is there a second? Levivich (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even know what company we are talking about. This company likes to advertise itself as a Swiss brand to increase brand value (old phenomenon), but it's distinctly an Austrian company, with headquarters in Austria. There is not a Swiss company with QWSTION in its name founded in 2008. The company that this article is about is the Austrian QWSTION International GmbH, and the company website supports this; this company was indeed founded in 2008. The Swiss QWSTION AG was founded in 2011. Another Swiss company, Iconic Product Intelligence GmbH was founded by a dutch citizen in 2007, and much later became QWSTION Schweiz GmbH. All three companies exist today. Schönegger is the CEO os the Austrian company (included in the article and sourced), but Handelsblatt talks about a Swiss company—which of the two? But does it really—or does it in fact talk about the Austrian company, but calls it a Swiss company because it was fed that information? Does one of the two Swiss companies employ 25 workers—or the Austrian one? The headquarters of QWSTION AG is a house. 25 people aren't employed there. The headquarters of QWSTION Schweiz GmbH is the Zürich store; it's likely that QWSTION Schweiz GmbH is about owning and operating the store. The Austrian company registered headquarters corresponds to a nice, real, hq building (the awareded wooden building). Ultimately: We don't have enough reliable material to work with. —Alalch E. 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that - seems likely they're on Wikipedia for promotional purposes too. US-Verified (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20 Minutes' article is most likely paid (check the byline, "von
cls", we don't know much about the writer). Other article is by Bellevue by NZZ (I don't know much about this new sub-publication but it seems promotional, so won't consider it as WP:SIGCOV. Bellevue's article is written by David Streiff Corti - not an established journalist. US-Verified (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional  // Timothy :: talk  17:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the El Pais article and it's strongly promotional. ... The embryonic idea was intended to answer questions such as: how to contribute to a more sustainable world using our competence and experience, how to design versatile and durable basics with no expiration date, how to make functional needs aesthetic, how to act being profitable with responsibility towards nature and the community, how we can make our learning accessible and let others join our progress, what really matters, With this starting point they were launched with conviction and have been designing and developing travel bags and backpacks for daily use for 14 years with a discreet appearance and a low environmental impact. ..." Just becomes worse after that, talks about Bananatex, and includes quotes from the company people. Paid. —Alalch E. 17:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're claiming any news article in a major newspaper that uses any form of flowery language when discussing a company is paid? Do you have anything to base this paid article claim on or are you just making it up from your opinion? SilverserenC 18:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming this. But articles that contain flowery language must not consist exclusively or predominantly of flowery language which is the case here. This is evidence of promotion, taken together with how the journalist apparently flew from Spain to Switzerland to talk to company people: Did the newspaper pay for his ticket so that he could write a litany of positive things about some bag company? NCORP says, when explaining what "trivial" means in the context: other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. There has to be commentary, discussion, analysis, evaluation, not just praise / promotional fluff language.—Alalch E. 18:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Author's bio: "He is the author of the novels 'Los Baldrichs', 'La estación perdida', 'Los buenos amigos' or 'Jauja' and the travel book 'Paris'. His narrative work has won several awards. He is a professor at the Sciences Po University in Paris. As a journalist he was awarded the Pica d'Estat Award in 2011. He collaborates in El Ojo Crítico of RNE and in EL PAÍS. 'Verso suelto' is his latest novel" I'd assume good faith and consider this as a genuine coverage. He is interested in travel topics [61] and has written similar articles like [62]. US-Verified (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On one hand, I understand the arguments that the article should be kept because the subject meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, I can appreciate the arguments that the article should be deleted because the subject doesn’t have WP:NOTABILITY. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and CORP, sources in article and BEFORE show nothing but PROMO, PRIMARY, ROUTINE, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. The Keep votes BEFORE shows this has no IS RS with SIGCOV, just promo.  // Timothy :: talk  17:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're arguing that all coverage of companies, such as Fast Company and Handelsblatt, counts as PROMO. Since you looked at the sources and did BEFORE, as you said, you're referring to those articles as such. Interesting stance. Should we just delete all company articles then? SilverserenC 17:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Silverseren, with respect, both of them are not about the company. Fast Company's article discusses Bananatex (which is notable in my opinion - just have to fix its promotional tone) and Handelsblatt's article is about the founder of the company and Bananatex. US-Verified (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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*. Also worth highlighting, it appears a number of Keep !votes appear to confuse notability of the company with notability of Bananatex. HighKing++ 12:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no demonstration of notability for company, (who's competence in spelling "QWSTION" is questionable) selling cheap looking canvas bags at outrageous prices to customers who believe the hype around "bananatex" and the supposed ethical and environmental benefits it conveys to the environmentally concious customer. It's a lot more complicated than that! The Marketeers have done a fine job. Roxy the dog 15:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP. We can do an analysis of the references to show how it fails that policy. scope_creepTalk 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 00:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Juneau

Jean-Pierre Juneau (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 26 March 2023 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Meadows

Rob Meadows (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)

Obscure non-notable businessman, its foundation is defunct and is tagged with UPE flag. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. I see that Rob Meadows was a keynote speaker at SXSW and CES which are quite notable, and I’m not sure why you are asserting that its Foundation is defunct? Instead of trying to delete these types of articles it would be more helpful to update them with the most recent information. I will help with a few updates to this one from the latest news I see. Kine Sundberg (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being well-known is not enough. We need siginficant coverage about him which in my opinion is not there. I did a WP:BEFORE: found trivial coverage or press releases. US-Verified (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to disagree on this one. Aside from the article sourcing, in my own very quick search I did see sourcing regarding SXSW participation, a few interviews or quotes, including an semi-interview by Fast Company (https://www.fastcompany.com/90456164/silicon-valleys-hot-new-commodity-creepy-ai-powered-avatars) so while I do think the article has sourcing issues at present, I don’t think he fails the notability check for sure, I lean to preserve and improve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don’t understand the UPE flag? I created the original article after seeing him speak at an event in Stockholm and thinking that his story was really interesting. I did more research on him and collected it in an article to save others time. Kine Sundberg (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources. To prove notability, please provide WP:THREE in-depth secondary sources. Otherwise, it will be redirectly most likely to his company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by US-Verified (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some additional research and found several recent articles and content from reputable sources that talk about the subject. I will update the article to include these. Kine Sundberg (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage by WP:RS sufficiently demonstrate notability satisfying WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Furthermore, a Canadian ambassador would be considered a notable subject per relevant guidelines (specifically, GNG), and the subject appears to have a notable career. While sourcing in the article may be weak, a drive-by AfD nomination is not an appropriate way to address it. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject has WP:NOTABILITY that would warrant inclusion as an article. Clearly, the subject is notable. Deletion could be considered if the subject didn’t have a claim to notability due to absence of coverage, however, WP:GNG is met by the subject and as such deletion is not the appropriate outcome for the article. If WP:GNG weren’t met by the totality of the subject and the subject’s career, the article could be considered a valid candidate for deletion. On the other hand, however, I find that the subject’s claim to notability is strong enough to pass the threshold for inclusion in the form of a standalone article, due to the appropriate GNG conditions being satisfied. The argument for deletion just isn’t very strong here in the face of the subject’s overall demonstrated WP:NOTABILITY, and the rationale for keeping is thus stronger on its merits. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note long after the fact: this was yet another sock. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 00:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lee Osborn

Tom Lee Osborn (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)

Hardly any significant coverage (won some trivial awards). Too early in career for a Wikipedia page. Please note that Christian Science Monitor is a syndicated article from TruthAtlas, sort of spam. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Doesn't meets WP:SIGCOV; coverage is WP:ROUTINE-based. Too early for an entry on encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Also, looks like WP:CV attempt. 102.217.120.102 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2023 (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 . Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Goscha

John Goscha (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 inventor and entrepreneur. Few mentions in the coverage, nothing else. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Leftover of User:Morning277. US-Verified (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete References found are all PR pieces. A 30 under 30 list nomination isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2023 (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 11:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Goodman Cameras

Dora Goodman Cameras (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)

Obscure non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Companies, and Hungary. AllyD (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources on the page would tend to prove this company is fairly notable.— MY, OH, MY! 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Please note that routine coverage doesn't towards comapny's notability. Even if there are reviews of the company's products (especially in reputable independent publications), that doesn't make the company noteworthy (notability of a company cannot be inherited from its products). I will share a detailed analysis as I find some time. US-Verified (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Company is notable. It is also significantly innovative; coverage describing them as being so is certainly not "routine". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, compared with Canon, Nikon and so forth, most definitely obscure. But obscurity isn't a reason to delete. The article demonstrates notability as defined hereabouts (and also, not that it matters much to us, notability as understood outside Wikipedia). -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2023 (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! 06:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Pani Doctor

Ma Pani Doctor (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:BEFORE check does not produce any reputable source to meet WP:NBOOK. Neither the content nor the author is relevant. Seems like a typical advertisement. nirmal (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CarSwap

CarSwap (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. US-Verified (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The SmartCompany and Business News Australia articles cited provide pretty good support for Wikipedia:INDEPTH and I think I see enough longitudinal coverage to satisfy Wikipedia:GNG without even doing my own search. I therefore lean preserve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo7hs2, I checked. The SmartCompany is okay (editorial team exists) but still feels like promotional. Business News Australia has no editorial team, so we trust this source. To meet WP:NCORP, we need at least three in-depth sources. The SmartCompany is one (I count it), where are other two? Also, this article was created by a spammer, so we can't trust them. US-Verified (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Too promotional need a wholesale rewrite and more reliable sources. Furthermore it was created by a user blocked for advertising. Lightoil (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article.--Bexaendos (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2023 (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! 06:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autovía A-318

Autovía A-318 (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)

Zero sources to establish notability for regional route. Reywas92Talk 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:GEOROAD is certainly applicable, given that Andalusia is a region that is composed of several provinces. So, this is equivalent to a provincial highway. --Rschen7754 03:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already Google Maps (among other places) says this is part of the Autovía del Olivar, and while not all of that road is 318, there already are a ton of sources on that road: [66], and Google search also turns up these: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. Clearly meets WP:GNG. --Rschen7754 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to be a major limited-access freeway in the vicinity of Lucena and Cabra. That the article creator failed to establish notability to 2023 standards when they created the article in 2010 doesn't mean that the article needs to be deleted, it means the sources need to be added to bring it up to modern standards. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—The Spanish Wikipedia article has 20 references, so we should presume notability. VC 04:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Autovía del Olivar, merging with other articles as necessary, as this is what sources currently focus on. (example). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 27 March 2023 (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 Cable One. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelity Communications

Fidelity Communications (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)

Obscure non-notable company - fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2023 (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! 06:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Marshall

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2023 (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! 06:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Prince

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSPORT. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:40, 26 March 2023 (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 11:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ladoja

Grace Ladoja (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)

Promotional article MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:37, 26 March 2023 (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! 06:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Softswiss

Softswiss (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)

Software company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - insufficent coverage in reliable sources that meet the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Belarus. AllyD (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note the earlier No consensus AfD when the title had different capitalisation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftSwiss, though that discussion seems to have featured WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and assertion of notability rather than identification of specific strong sources to influence the present discussion. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a firm which provides casino site software. Searches find interviews with the founder about crypto prospects [74] and multiple similarly-worded recent announcement-based items about the company's recent performance which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Inclusion of this company in articles describing the difficulty of continuing to operate under conditions in Belarus and consequent relocation of staff is interesting but does not contribute to notability of any particular firm itself. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Looking at the sources (aside from PRIMARY sourcing and trivial trademark info), none meet the criteria as follows:
    • Bloomberg which is clearly marked as a Press Release, fails ORGIND
    • Forbes in 2020 is an interview with the CEO in relation to problems in Belarus, no "Independent Content" and nothing in-depth about the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
    • Patch.com profile posted in "Neighbour News", not a reliable source, fails WP:RS.
    • Another Forbes 2020 article about problems in Belarus at that time, another interview with the CEO, again no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
    • Forbes article from 2021 after companies had left Belarus, another interview with the CEO, no "Independent Content", also fails ORGIND
None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I do not believe that the article on the CEO Ivan Valeryevich Montik meets notability criteria either. HighKing++ 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 HighKing++  17:19, 29 March 2023 (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! 06:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Ouweneel

Willem Ouweneel (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 doesn't seem to be WP:BASIC notability. The cited sources are interviews with the subject, quotes from his publications, and an opinion piece critcizing him. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (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! 06:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zashiur Rahman Shetu

Mohammad Zashiur Rahman Shetu (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)

Three of the sources are based on the same press release. The other two cover the same song release. The subject is not wiki notable. The article is poorly written and promotional in nature. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Does not appear to have enough coverage and also does not meet WP:MUSICBIO.
    Pershkoviski (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After searching in English and Bengali, I concur that the subject is not notable. He first broke into playback singing just last year, so perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for independent, reliable, secondary sources to have written much about him. For what it's worth, the Bengali-language Wikipedia recently speedily deleted an article about him for failing to show importance, being promotional, and having the appearance of a conflict of interest.[75] --Worldbruce (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another dubious moment in terms of COI is the creation of the page by an WP:SPA. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reviewing on my own, I reach the same conclusion. WP:PROMO article for a non notable subject, created by an WP:SPA. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2023 (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 a consensus to Keep but it would be nice for these references to make their way into the article. I have moved the article back to its original title because it otherwise complicates an AFD closure but feel free to discuss a future article page move. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autovia C-13

Autovia C-13 (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)

Zero in-depth sourcing to show notability. No indication it meets WP:GEOROAD, and it's not listed at Highways in Spain, so no way to ascertain the road's significance. Also, as per WP:MAPCITE, a single map should never be the sole source for providing route descriptions. The redirect was reverted, without providing sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG, so as per recent discussions at ANI, the only alternative is AfD. Onel5969 TT me 00:59, 26 March 2023 (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! 06:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 PDC World Cup of Darts

2023 PDC World Cup of Darts (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)

Zero independent coverage. Was redirected, as it might have some notability in the future, but the redirect was challenged, so as per recent discussions at ANI, the only alternative is AfD. Currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 00:48, 26 March 2023 (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.
Categories
Table of Contents