Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada–Spain relations[edit]

Grenada–Spain relations (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. There isn't much to these relations: no embassies, no state visits. The agreements are minor such as for "visas for holders of diplomatic passport". LibStar (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Foos[edit]

Shari Foos (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. And they do not appear to meet any of the SNG's either. Onel5969 TT me 19:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously dePRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Ébert[edit]

Pierre Ébert (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)

Biography of an actor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors do not all get an automatic free notability pass just for having acting roles per se -- the notability test is not passed just by copy-pasting a list of roles from his IMDb profile, but by showing evidence that some of the roles have been externally validated as significant, such as by winning or being nominated for major acting awards or being the subject of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage about his performances.
But the problem here is that nearly all of his acting roles were as minor or unnamed bit part characters (my personal favourite being "cadavre", which means exactly what it looks like) -- he only ever had one role (Les Bougon) potentially significant enough to count for something toward NACTOR #1, but even NACTOR #1 demands multiple significant roles rather than just one. Plus there's only one footnote in the article, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself, but there aren't any better sources that can be pulled over from the French article, as besides the same footnote that is already here the only other ones being used there are unreliable entertainment blogs that aren't support for notability at all, still covering him exclusively in the context of his death rather than showing career coverage during his lifetime. And even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google, I found literally jack spit, getting just one coincidental name match on a different person with the same name and absolutely zero hits about this one.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of real media coverage about his work. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow Keep. The overwhelming consensus here is a clear Keep. With the rationales given and no delete !votes, I'm closing this as a keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uranian[edit]

Uranian (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 is a dispute over whether this article is notable, whether it is the primary topic, and if perhaps a redirect to the planet Uranus as the primary topic would be better. Lithopsian (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the use of the term with the specific meaning described in the article is well established though the term is no longer current. There are certainly other uses but there is no reason why they can’t be covered appropriately elsewhere. As far as I can see for 21 years we haven’t had an article with this title, and as soon as we get one, a bunch of people pile in to say we should have other things under this title, or that the term has more than one meaning. Of course it has, but nothing is stopping anyone from creating articles about them. A redirect to Uranus would certainly not be better IMV. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable historical term in the development of LGBT identity, having more than one definition is hardly a reason to delete the article. Just make a disambig, jeez. Dronebogus (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has nothing to do with the planet. The Ottawa Citizen (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) 20 Nov 1971, Sat Page 37 mentions "uranian love", or high minded homosexuality. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/30/what-can-we-learn-from-utopians-of-the-past Carpenter’s work did help popularize the term he favored for the homoerotic: “Uranian.” (Oscar Wilde, among others, adopted the term and evangelized for it.) Various reliable sources do confirm this is a real thing, and there is clearly enough valid information to have an article about it. Dream Focus 13:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what a mess. Uranian Love redirects to Uranus. Some people seem to thing that Uranus is the main topic, but that shouldn't mean that we have no article on this topic at all. We do have the section Karl_Heinrich_Ulrichs#Campaigner_for_sexual_reform that discusses the term. If someone came across the term Uranian, and did not know what it meant in a given context, I would expect that they are capable of figuring out that they are not looking up something that means "of or relating to the planet Uranus". They might be looking for a fictional inhabitant of the planet Uranus, or perhaps for something relating to Urania. In stead of deleting, propose a disambiguation page that covers all these different uses.Vexations (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed that redirect that was in error because of a bot making a mistake. I don't think anyone would search for fictional people from the planet Uranus. Nothing appears in any news search and I can't think of any popular entertainment media using that term. Its not common like Martian is. Dream Focus 16:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A review of discussion in reliable sources indicates this topic is clearly notable. I would probably support moving the article currently at Uranian to a disambiguated title and moving Uranian (disambiguation) to Uranian, but that is a question for another forum.--Trystan (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources easily establish that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would this redirect to the planet Uranus? Should we delete Plutocracy next and redirect to Pluto? BBQboffin (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there appears to be some confusion over that fact that Uranian can refer to both Uranus (Uran-ian) and Urania (Urani-an). Of those two the planet may be the better known topic, but that does not apply to the adjectival form, where "of or referring to the planet", or "inhabitant of the planet" are not the primary topics.Vexations (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dronebogus (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Andrade (fighter)[edit]

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

While he passes WP:MMABIO, he fails WP:GNG. Majority of his coverage is through sports databases and routine reports. Andrade is also unlikely to meet GNG as he hasn't fought in over 12 years and is in his late 40s. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Larsen[edit]

Kenneth Larsen (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:NPROF. Although the article does not look updated, I'm having trouble finding relevant sources that would augment the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His record as a researcher is not strong. If the publications listed in the article are his only ones, it's unsurprising that I've not found any substantial coverage of him online. However, there are these two reviews of his book: [1] and [2]. One is in the Yearbook of English Studies, the other in the Sixteenth Century Journal. This means that the subject satisfies Criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR. It is still true that almost nothing can be verifiably said about him and so, given that NAUTHOR is a gauge for a subject's level of coverage, I'm still undecided as to whether this should be kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found one more review in the Sewanee Review [3], for what it's worth. We may be missing some reviews, but so far this looks a bit on the weak side. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability as an author or scholar of the humanities requires more than one not-very-importsant book. His edition of Spenser's minor poems is, contrary to what the article says, not the standard edition, its a 1997 ed. by a very minor academic publisher --worldcat shows only 17 libraries. (the most recent standard academic edition is The Yale edition of the shorter poems of Edmund Spenser ed. William A Oram, ISBN 78030004245 , in many hundreds of libraries. ; there are numerous other complete editions from academic presses that are much more important than this one). DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DGG's analysis that shows he does not meet our academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG's analysis and fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Vallis (singer)[edit]

Beau Vallis (singer) (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)

Few links and does not have citations proving this is a notable singer or music figure. InEventOf (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as the article has seen improvement. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Claes[edit]

Gabrielle Claes (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)

Unreferenced article about a person notable only as conservator of an archive and purportedly making a small cameo appearance in a film -- but the latter claim isn't even verified by her IMDb profile, let alone any reliable sources that would actually count toward establishing notability for it, and the former claim isn't referenced at all. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they've had jobs; the notability test is the reception of media coverage about their work to establish that it's been externally validated as significant. But even in the French article, three of the four footnotes are dead links I haven't been able to recover, and the only live link is just a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in an article whose core subject is her successor in the archive job, so there's still no clear evidence that she would pass WP:GNG.
And for added bonus, the article's been tagged for sourcing and notability questions since 2010 without ever being improved at all, and according to that glancing namecheck source she left the archive job in 2011 without the article ever being updated to say that until I saw that source just now.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived European media coverage than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As it existed, the article did not provide enough information to establish notabolity. I have added in details (with citations) about her work with the archive, international groups involved in film preservation, and awards she has received. There seem to be more articles that I cannot access in European papers, but I feel I have added enough to fend off deletion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One addition - I found a citation for her appearance in the film, but I think that qualifies more as a curio. She is not at all known as an actress, instead she works on the preservation of films. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's better. Thanks for that, and consider this withdrawn as promised. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Arena curling[edit]

Arena curling (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)

Unreferenced since 2009. I've asked at the Curling Wikiproject and the feedback was that whilst this was a real thing, no sources could be provided to show a WP:GNG pass. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE found either. FOARP (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benon Basheka[edit]

Benon Basheka (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 academic (as per poor sourcing provided currently), promo. Most probably a COI issue too. Tame (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He was a vice-chancellor, so may meet WP:NACADEMIC #6. The question is whether the Uganda Technology and Management University counts as a major institution. I suspect not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Kabele University where he is now is on a level to give the vice chancelor default notability, but he is not the vice chancellor there, only the 1st deputy vice chancellor. The place he actually was vice chancellor does not seem to be on the level to give academic heads default notability. In the past too often we have seen a VCship, or in the US a president/chancellor/whatever else the head of a university or college is called, and assumed passing academic notability #6 without any further investigation. A few of the cases that seem to be largely being kept on this ground involve heads of high schools or even sub-high school level institutions that later evolved into a tertiary educational institution. Actually I have never seen any of those cases go to AfD, so I am not sure what would happen if they did, and we have so many low quality, low source articles from the 2000s, that even over a decade after that period of time ended we have not even tried to fix some of the problems created by the mass influx of low quality articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the previous comment -- had he been v-c of Kabele University he'd be notable. But he isn't, and there's no further evidence of notability. We have indeedexpanded the meaning of criterion 6 very far--but I'm not sure where the cutoff should be. It has to be wider than research university, because presidency of many very important colleges is surely notability , but where in the "college" spectrum to stop does not seem easy to specify. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of presidents of universities could pass on GNG alone. For example on first review it appears there are enough articles about Scott Scarborough who was president of the University of Akron to show him notable on that. I would also argue that most presidents of say elite Liberal Arts Colleges in the US are notable. I am not sure any head of any of say the 22 California State University campuses are going to be notable. With the heads of community colleges I think we should always just go for GNG verification, and probably the same for junior colleges. On places that are not seen as top ranked research universities, Eastern Michigan University is one I know well, having done course work for a master's in history there. We have List of presidents of Eastern Michigan University. Hmm, actually it is listed as being a "public resaerch university". It was clearly not such until the second half of the 20th-century though. They only have a master's program in history, but I believe they do have Ph.D. programs in sciences and some humanities. We do have articles like Charles McKenny which is sourced to 1-an Ypsilanti Daily Press article and 2-the Eastern Michigan University papers on McKenny. Hmm, I created that article in November 2010 when I was taking a class on local history at Eastern Michigan University and working on Eastern Michigan University in World War I, so I was examining the various articles on the campus at that time. Looking back I am less than convinced that McKenny is notable, even though he was head of 3 different places that are now universities (he earlier lead what is now Central Michigan University and what is now the University of Wisconsin-Madison, all three were essentially teacher training colleges at the time, I think they may have only really been giving 2 years of training).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Potential to recreate as a redirect if an article is created for the first film or the series. RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the Beat! Back 2 School[edit]

To the Beat! Back 2 School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, and the content of the article is either straight up copyvio promo [4] or a cast list. Insufficient references to reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • When considering this, keep in mind that the article on the first film was deleted while it was still in production - it hadn't received any reviews yet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with ReaderofthePack, remake into article about the series, maybe with significantly trimmed cast lists. To The Beat! should be restored to this end. It is 100% wrong that an AFD outcome in 2017 inhibits restoration if new sources are added to the restored article. Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, a merge of these two articles seems like a good alternative to deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first movie doesn't have a page, and nothing here to support this movie as notable as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first film does have an article but it was redirected. It had sources, it could be re-created if others wished. NemesisAT (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found in a BEFORE to support having an article. 16:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Blue Beetle enemies. History is available if there is useful content to merge, and the best target can be discussed further in other venues if needed. RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Beetle (DC Comics)[edit]

Black Beetle (DC Comics) (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 character. No WP:GNG-compliant source that I can find. Avilich (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article written like a plot summary and based mainly on primary references. I doubt that will change since the Black Beetle is such a minor character. So I don't see reason to keep this. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that sourcing is sufficient for it to stand now, thinly skirting GNG, with the release on the immediate horizon. Would be different if it were further out, and our had no hope of future sourcing. Star Mississippi 17:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I.S.S. (film)[edit]

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

I.S.S. (film)

Unreleased film that does not satisfy general notability and so does not satisfy any version of film notability. An article should speak for itself, and this article says nothing about what is notable about the film (because nothing is, because the film doesn't yet exist and its production has not been notable).

There has been a myth for many years that the statement by a reliable source that a film is in production makes the film notable. That has been a myth at least since 2008. Nonetheless, editors often nominate older, little documented films for deletion. There is no real reason why little-documented unreleased films should be more notable than little-documented almost forgotten films. An effort to clarify the film notability guideline resulted in No Consensus, so nothing has changed. The mere fact that a film has been in production does not make it notable unless its production has been notable.

Of the four references, one states that the film was produced, one states that an actress was signed to play in it, one states that it began production, and a paywalled source probably states that it began production.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 fastlaneng.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com A database of films shot at least partly in Louisiana - lists the film Yes No Probably No
2 Deadline.com Announcement of signing of actress No Not with respect to film Yes No
3 Starnewsonline.com (Wilmington, NC) Paywalled, but apparently states that the film is being filmed No No
4 Varietyinsight States that the film is being filmed in North Carolina Yes No Probably No

Draftification is probably the best action, but after the article has been in article space for months, a unilateral draftification would be inappropriate. There is a content dispute about whether to mention a fact about the film, but the real content issue is whether to have an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Draftify there are a few sources including Tor.com,[7] and Deadline Hollywood,[8][9] that push this to meet GNG in my opinion. At worst, I would agree with draftifying this one so it can be worked on until the movie comes out and is inevitably reviewed. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Hana[edit]

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

NO evidence of notability and no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 17:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Kimmell[edit]

Bruce Kimmell (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 has been tagged since 2011. Subject doesn't appear to meet notability under WP:MUSICBIO. Muzilon (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Drifting Classroom#Adaptations. Anyone is free to merge any important stuff to the target article, if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 16:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drifting School[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: What do you suggest merging, as what is there is entirely unsourced and not particularly well written? Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davies, Clive (2015-03-06). Spinegrinder: The Movies Most Critics Won’t Write About. SCB Distributors. ISBN 978-1-909394-06-3.
Jumpytoo Talk 02:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Circuit (2002 film)[edit]

The Circuit (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Circuit 2: The Final Punch[edit]

The Circuit 2: The Final Punch (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lime Salted Love[edit]

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

Film fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the material existing and available doesn't meet notability requirements. Star Mississippi 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Engineer[edit]

Sandeep Engineer (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)

Entity is being promoted. Note, WP:NOTCV. Possible WP:UPE/WP:COI. Besides that, it lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOV . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

* Keep: The article needs a clean up. Although the current version is filled with poor sources, I could find WP:FORBES sources with significant coverage.[10][11] and another one from Business Standard.[12] - SUN EYE 1 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Forbes has a dubious history in promoting businesses and businesspeople in guise of journalism. Not much idea about Business Standard. but its easy to assume that all three above-mentioned sources lack WP:BIO, WP:NPOV, and WP:INDY. Owners' interviews and quotes by his son(s) doesn't establish independent coverage. -Hatchens (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatchens, I agree with you here, the article does look like a promotion but WP:RSP records WP:FORBES as "generally reliable". - SUN EYE 1 17:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suneye1, Correct, WP:FORBES is generally taken into consideration (as per WP:RSP) when the pieces are written by staff writers (with dedicated bylines). However, when such publications carries a good number of quotes that are directly pulled out from the interviewee or anyone close to interviewee then it fails at WP:INDY. In this entity's case, Forbes is merely repeating his/their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, such type sources should be treated like self-published material/WP:USESPS. -Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just adding my two pennies: Forbes also publishes articles by contributors in addition to paid staff. Those have often been of dubious quality. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The sources I provided above are probably from an interview and gives too much undue attention to the subject's own views, thus failing WP:INDY. Can't find any other sources for significant coverage.- SUN EYE 1 08:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Eatock[edit]

James Eatock (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:BIO with no legitimate third-party coverage. Article has been nothing more than a resume since its 2007 creation and unsourced the entire time, save for one single NY Daily News promotional piece added nearly eight years ago. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kohinoor Toastmasters Club[edit]

Kohinoor Toastmasters 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)

Non-notable Saudi Arabian organization. Fails WP:NCORP. Possiby an undeclared WP:COI. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malavan Novin F.C.[edit]

Malavan Novin F.C. (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 confess to knowing little about football, and even less about Iranian football, but I fail to see how a reserve team can be notable. Emeraude (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above to Malavan F.C., inclined to agree that the team isn't notable in its own right but that redirecting is a suitable deletion alternative. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 17:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebix Smartclass Educational Services[edit]

Ebix Smartclass Educational Services (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)

Coverage are press releases, passing mentions, or routing coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to Ebix. MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mortimer Wheeler[edit]

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

no apparent evidence of notability; routine career; none would be expected DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A/c our article, in 2000 there were 1072 QCs; in 2017 about 1700 [
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper is clearly enough to establish notability and has always been held to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know there is a slew of Keep votes here, but personally, I don't see it. Yes, he has some obits (and there is precedent there), but as far as I can see...as per DGG he was just a barrister and he served in ww2 - neither of those two things establish notability by themselves. There's no detail of what notable things he achieved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suppose that there is some us/uk difference here--there may be some reticence in writing down something specific about a barrister. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is certainly no inherent notability for being a barrister - every barrister doesn't get their own wikipedia. And there doesn't seem to be any information that indicates why this person, as a barrister, is notable - eg, what notable things did they do for the legal profession. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he was a QC, not just a run-of-the-mill junior barrister. QCs are generally considered to be pretty notable people and do often get obits in national newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QCs and their counterparts SCs are not just normal barristers, they are more experienced barristers, however, there is still plenty of them, and being one doesn't make you notable enough to get your own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A/c our article, in 2000 there were 1072 QCs; in 2017, about 1700 [13] in the UK,not counting canda , austraiia, etc. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the obituaries he was more than just a barrister, eg The Times: "It was not normal for barristers of his specialisation to become High Court Judges, but, from 1972 to 1989, he sat as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division." Piecesofuk (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if that can be confirmed that he was a deputy high court judge, that's definitely something of note! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources noted above and per the nominator withdrawing the nomination. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cybage[edit]

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

The page of this entity is an end-to-end WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Also, there is no encyclopedic value of this page. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to ICL Group Ltd.. When discounting SPAs and others canvassed to the discussion that have not provided policy based keep !votes, there is a clear consensus that Zoller is not notable as defined on Wikipedia. Either a delete, or a redirect is a valid outcome, and I have decided on the latter as he is mentioned there and this would be a valid search. Star Mississippi 21:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raviv Zoller[edit]

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

BLP disguised as business brochure article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No effective references. Fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Globes: Ref 1 Raviv Zoller to be appointed Israel Chemicals CEO]. This a routine announcement of work. It is primary.
The Marker: Ref 10 Ness Technologies Names Outsider as New CEO That is exact same news as above, indicating it comes from a press-release. It is a routine annoucement. Not in-depth either.
Reuters: I don't see it.
Calcalist Ref 4: Raviv Zoller: "I did not ask for a salary. I said, do you want me? I'm coming Raviv Zoller will likely be appointed CEO of Israel Chemicals More routine coverage. Not in-depth.
Haaretz Ref 3: Raviv Zoller, CEO of Ness Technologies It has a cv style listing of his work, age etc at the end of the article. It is primary and is PR. Fails WP:SIRS because it is so company orientated for this BLP.
Jerusalem Post Ref 7: The lounge. It is passing mention. His name is mention and nothing else. Not references satisfy the guidelines. Not in-depth.

Of all those references there, not one of them can be used to establish notability safely. They are standard annoucements, PR, WP:PRIMARY or very low quality. The are the standard type of coverage that any senior person gets, but there needs to be more depth and I can't get. scope_creepTalk 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Seems the counterarguments are just nit-picking an otherwise well sourced article. Someone is worried about it sounding like a PR brochure. As with all other articles and biographies, if there is something negative about the man to include, then - like with all other articles - include it! This person has done more notable things in his life than most people: Founder of Ness Technologies Inc., chair of Clal Underwriting, CEO of IDI Insurance, and President/CEO of Israel Chemicals. And all of this is sourced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a company, becoming a ceo of a company and becoming the president of a company doesn't make you automatically notable. Wikipedia has strict policies against making a BLP look like a PR brochure. Your comments indicate that your a paid editor. scope_creepTalk 03:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What???? Go through my edit history and user contributions - seriously? Your comments indicate that you didn't even read what I wrote! Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentScope Creep, you are deleting information from the article based on reliable sources, apparently to empty the article of content and prove the subject in non-notable. Now let's get rational. If a company decides on strategic moves under the leadership of a CEO, how can you say that there is no connection to the CEO? How can you say that the business decisions and state of the company have no place in the biography of its CEO?? Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are certainly welcome. There are thousands of ridiculous entries and it's good to have someone looking out, but in this case, the person heads one of Israel's largest corporations and is worthy of an entry. I have been editing and writing articles on Wikipedia for a very long time, and I believe I can sniff out problems as well as you. If you look at the history, you can see I have dedicated myself to improving the encyclopedia. Deleting may be valid in many cases, but not this one. Best, --Geewhiz (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very quick jump to conclusions, particularly since you haven't single edit to the article. This is type of information I removed: the ICL Group has become part of the global food production chain, venturing into new areas such as the meat substitute market. That is promotional. We will go through the references today. scope_creepTalk 21:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A click on their username would reveal that it is a nickname for Gilabrand, a heavy contributor to the article. Havradim (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How can the CEO of a company with 11,000 employees be non-notable?

ICL is one of Israel's biggest companies.

Notability is not inherited from a company. One does not get covered in an encylopaedia merely because they run a large company. Wikipedia is a reference of work to provide the sum of all human knowledge, not a soap box for a CEO. Such-change47 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Entrepreneurship in the Global Economy" published by Cambridge university press discusses his career in detail so the claim that the sources are not in-depth is inaccurate. There are also several interviews with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterLord1980 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPA with no editing experience or link to the article except as a paid editor. scope_creepTalk 11:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references:
Ref 1. Raviv Zoller to be appointed Israel Chemicals CEO This is routine appointment news. It is primary and is both an interview and comes from a press release].
Ref 2. [14]
Ref 3. Raviv Zoller, CEO of Ness Technologies The 10 largest customers of Ness Technologies This is promotional and is not independent.
Ref 4. Raviv Zoller: "I did not ask for a salary. I said, do you want me? I'm coming Raviv Zoller will likely be appointed CEO of Israel Chemicals. Routine coverage. In the first interview since taking office, he is moved by the professional challenge. This is an interview and is primary.
Ref 5. This is a genuine source.
Ref 6. Israel Chemicals appoints IDI Insurance head as new CEO This comes from the same press-release as reference 1.
Ref 7. The lounge. It is passing mention. His name is mention and nothing else. Not in-depth.
Ref 8. Prospectus This is non-RS. Shouldn't be in the article.
Ref 9. Raviv Zoller appointed CEO of ICL Press-release.
Ref 10. Ness Technologies Names Outsider as New CEO Routine coverage of a job annoucement.
Ref 11. [15] Real secondary source.
Ref 12. [www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ness-tech-acquires-innova-for-25-million-106022201136_1.html Ness Tech acquires Innova for $25 million] Press-release.
Ref 13. Non-RS.
Ref 14. Israel's Ness buys APAR Infotech for $78 M Press-release
Ref 15. Ness Technologies Continues Tradition of Hosting World Leaders at Annual Customer Conference Press-release.
Ref 16. Ness Technology : Al Gore to Ness Technologies' Clients and Business Partners: Addressing Global Environmental Concerns Should be the World's Top Priority Prnewswire Press-prelease.
Ref 17. Giuliani visits Israel Routine annoucement
Ref 18. Ness wins $10m IDF contract Routine annoucement from a press-release.

Reference summation

Ref 1 Independent No Reliable No Not independent
Ref 2 Unable to access. Looks like a good secondary source
Ref 3 Independent No Reliable No Significant coverage No Not independent
Ref 4 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage No Not significant
Ref 5 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage Yes (Four paragraphs)
Ref 6 Independent Yes Reliable No Significant coverage No Press-release
Ref 7 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage No Not significant
Ref 8 Non-RS
Ref 9 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage No Press-release
Ref 10 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage No Not significant
Ref 11 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage Yes (Same ref as ref 5)
Ref 12 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage No Press-release
Ref 13 Non-RS
Ref 14 Independent No Reliable No Significant coverage No Press-release
Ref 15 Independent No Reliable No Significant coverage No Press-release
Ref 16 Independent No Reliable No Significant coverage No Press-release
Ref 17 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage No Not significant
Ref 18 Independent Yes Reliable Yes Significant coverage No Press-release

The whole article is built on two secondary sources that confirm that he was in the Navy and he is businessman who founded Ness, along with a Cambridge University published book that is likely a good secondary source. The rest are routine annoucements, mostly based on press-releases that are not independent, along with several articles that don't provide significant coverage. The references are atrocious. There has been an attempt at canvassing. scope_creepTalk 12:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After looking closer at the sources I see that another book cited is "If you really want to change the world", published by Harvard business review press. Cambridge and Harvard would not write about non-notables. WaterLord1980 (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two sock-puppets / Single-purpose accounts involved in this discussion User:WaterLord1980 and Philippe1226; maybe if we search carefuly we can discover a lot more.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wow, longest puff-piece I've seen. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notable without a doubt. Oaktree would do better to read up on the subjects he knows nothing about. I see from their user contributions that they are a serial deletionist who goes from one deletion page to another claiming "non-notability" with no demonstrated knowledge of the people/countries/businesses involved. The aggressiveness being shown here is unbelievable. Anybody who disagrees is automatically labeled a "paid editor" or a "sockpuppet." Sad, sad, that what was supposed to be a joint effort in which everyone is welcome to contribute has become a battleground where everyone is suspected of ulterior motives.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gilabrand: I would urge you to calm yourself with the personal attacks. They are not well liked by the admin corps and will likely lead to a block if you continue doing it. scope_creepTalk 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree's been a trusted editor for the last decade and has been given auto-patrolled status, so he understands notability standards. Won an award for a photograph recently on Wikipedia Commons, so he has an understanding of what is required. Thanks for explaining this though. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia:Civility for an explanation, it's a code of conduct, not a list of "nice rules". Personal attacks are below what we're discussing here and we'd ask you to keep it to yourself, please and thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable. A CEO of such a large company. Atbannett (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what about the lack of quality sources? Saying he is notable without addressing the lack of coverage is problematic. There must be WP:SECONDARY sources for a BLP. scope_creepTalk 12:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, being the CEO of a large company of any size or having a large amount of money isn't by itself enough to make a person notable. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE doesn't even assume it for fortune 500 CEOs, which this one isn't. While the fortune 500 CEOs are usually notable, it's not merely on account of their job; it's been a strong indicator because they usually have a bunch of substantial independent press that this one doesn't. That makes him some person with a job. FalconK (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) He is an Israeli President and CEO. He has been serving as ICL´s President and CEO since May 2018. Prior to joining ICL, from 2008, Zoller served as the CEO of I.D.I. Insurance Company Ltd., which is listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. In 1999, he founded Ness Technologies Inc., which began trading on NASDAQ in 2004 and served as its President and CEO until 2007.Ovedc (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is being paid for his comments and as such he a coi. scope_creepTalk 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of Jewish Isreali based editor's here now, commenting. Not one of them mentioning the dodgy sources. scope_creepTalk 15:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is plainly cavassing: Atabtnett and especially Danny-W are not active in the english wikipedia, they are friends of OVEDC (the paid contributor), he asked them to help him. The Israeli editors doing this all time, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roey Peleg (2nd nomination). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5F5A:D400:3072:5F19:57A4:7429 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We've seen what he's done, but it's not notable, as explained above. We aren't saying he isn't notable, but based on what we have here, not worthy of a wikipedia article. Being Jewish Iraeli is besides the point, it helps to have a neutral, third-party point of view. Again, please stop with the personal attacks, we hold contributors to a higher standard and expect they do the same. A Canadian Roman Catholic if that matters (it does not, thank you very much). Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Motion that we close this this descussion, the discussion has devolved into personal attacks and useless banter. Two sources, simply confirming he exists. Nothing to prove notability has arisen. Delete until proven otherwise. Ban the sockpupuets and censor the paid editors that devolve into personal attacks. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're is not one policy based argument amongst the lot of them. I'm thinking of taking the whole lot of them to ANI. They are tag teaming, which is probably disruptive. scope_creepTalk 00:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ICL Group Ltd.. Per WP:NOTLINKEDIN, a stand-alone article is not warranted here. Per nom, the sources in Hebrew are just as deficient, similar to a US CEO written up in Forbes, and the paid editing is a problem. A few of the references do not even mention him, or only do so in passing. However, this person does exist, and redirecting to the company is a better option than deleting. A line or a small paragraph about him would suffice. Havradim (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:RESUME. I can't find any notability criteria that are clear-cut in support of this page, and the page doesn't describe anything that is noteworthy in the historical record at all; this only exists to promote the dude's work. FalconK (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need to filter out the noise caused by clear off-site canvassing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The analysis of references demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt this article subject does not meet notability guidelines. While not in of itself evidence the article must be deleted, it is highly persuasive given the article reads like a resume. I recommend delete for these reasons. Such-change47 (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As others have pointed out, there is public interest. I will add the fact that millions of Google results are obtained by searching for the name of the company headed by Raviv (ICL GROUP LTD). ~Jacob ~ סטודנט של החיים (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:SPA who made exactly one edit. scope_creepTalk 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as discussed ALL above reasons. Non-notable fellow other than for doing his job. When it devolves into personal attacks, you know it's not worth keeping. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)]][reply]

Done Oaktree b (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ICL Group Ltd., sources provided are not sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. Jumpytoo Talk 07:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to ICL Group Ltd. Wow, there's a lot of bludgeoning going on here by unexperienced editors. Discussion shows that this article is not notable though, and I think we have a clear consensus to delete the article. ––FormalDude talk 00:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Utah#Republican primary. Consensus is against keeping, and this is the standard solution in such cases. Can be recreated if she becomes more notable. Sandstein 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Isom[edit]

Ally Isom (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)

Use of deprecated sources. Might fail GNG. Upon Google search, there are a few results from reliable sources, but mostly passing mentions, no significant coverage. Tame (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing to keep because I feel her notability pre-dates her latest electoral run. Even if she doesn't win, she is notable for her actions in the past. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gehrke, Gary (December 29, 2010). "Herbert names new spokeswoman". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16. Gov. Gary Herbert named Ally Isom as his new deputy chief of staff and communications director Wednesday as part of a major overhaul of his senior staff heading into the legislative session.
  2. ^ Gehrke, Robert (November 16, 2013). "Herbert's deputy chief of staff leaving for more family time". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
  3. ^ Rolly, Paul (November 11, 2016). "Rolly: Herbert's former spokeswoman quits the GOP". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16. "Dear GOP, you may have won an election yesterday, but you lost me," wrote Ally Isom, who now is director of Family and Community Relations for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  4. ^ "Robert Gehrke: Frustrated with Trump, these LDS women are calling for change, but will it matter?". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
  5. ^ "Why does Utah have so few female legislators?". PBS NewsHour. 2016-10-09. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All India Kisan Mahasabha[edit]

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

A before search returns with trivial mentions. It fails to qualify WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. As stated on creator's userpage, it seems user has failed to comply with our WP:COI guidelines. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was unable to find much above mentions, never mind WP:SIRS-level coverage, so WP:NORG is unlikely to be satisfied. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON. As it stands, there appear to be issues with the WP:NPOV of that article: while the plight of the farmers sounds awful, this should be backed up with sufficient citations of good quality, and put in the context of rationales for things relevant to the article. WP shouldn't be the first location for presenting that story in the context of this political front. Perhaps some of this content could go under pages for related parties. Chumpih t 06:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I see a few new minor links out from the article. I've added a link in to the article myself. But we're still a very long way from WP:NORG. Chumpih t 21:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prior to the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest I would have !voted redirect to the CPI-ML(L) page, but not so sure now... I will come back to this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As i earlier said, "before search returns with trivial mentions" – the sources you provided fails to qualify significant and independent coverage. All sources are focused on 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. Sources presented by Goldsztajn are also focused on protests than the subject in question. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fund zero independent sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between the 15-odd sources Soman and I have posted, please indicate how are these not independent of the AIKM or CPI-ML(L)? The Hindu? The Siliguri Times? Dainik Jagran? Of course these are articles about farmers' protests, it is a highly politicised farmers' organisation (technically landless peasants, and while a quibble, quite important difference in terms of caste/class politics in India). The AIKM is a leading part of the coalition of agricultural organisations which took part in the protests; the vast majority of the articles I posted below are focussed purely on the AIKM and describe its activities, these are not trivial mentions. There's no doubt its profile grew during the protests, but these have been over for a month and the AIKM continues to receive coverage. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu: Demanding tar-topped roads between Yercaud and Kovilur village, drinking water and hospital facilities, members of All India Kissan Mahasabha (AIKM) staged a demonstration near Anna Statue in Yercaud here on Wednesday.
Dainik Jagran: CPI ML and All India Kisan Mahasabha on Friday staged dharna in various blocks and raised their voice in support of their demands. On behalf of the All India Kisan Mahasabha, a dharna (protest) was held in front of the Saria sub-divisional headquarters for the five-point demands. Vijay Kumar Singh, Sonu Pandey, Sudama Ram, Amrit Sharma, Lalmani Yadav, Laxman Prasad Mandal etc. were present on the occasion.
The Siliguri Times: The All India Kisan Mahasabha launched Rail Roko Abhiyan protesting against the privatization of agricultural services. Despite continuous farmers’ movement in Delhi for the past 85 days, no solution has been provided so far. Hence, the state’s leftist workers, students, youths, and women's organizations jointly staged a movement with the All India Kisan Mahasabha. Both the organizations joined the Rail Roko Abhiyan at Rangapani near Siliguri on Thursday.
WP:IS, says Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved.
WP:SIRS says, 1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears, apologies, but can you be explicit, how does any of that indicate these are not independent? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is great stuff. We need to ensure a few of these links will pass WP:SIRS, and get them in to the article. Chumpih t 23:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any source that disscus the subject independently? Being a participant in a protest do not confer notability. Hundreds of people and orgs participated in this protest that doesn't mean that we should create Wikipedia articles for every organisation, group or individuals. An independent sources generally discuss the subject without being influenced by other topics. It also discuss the subject in 100-150 words. None of the sources talks about subject's background, history or its notable contribution to its respective field. What i have read in sources "only protests" – ".....staged protest", "Secretary of .... organised meeting" etc. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independence is about the relationship between source and subject (eg are editorial decisions of the source controlled by the subject), not the source content and the subject. In this case, material published in the party journal Liberation would not be independent, or an article by a party official published in any journal/newspaper would not be independent. I cannot see any reason to indicate that the sources being discussed here are not independent. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "फसली ऋण व बिजली बिल माफ करे सरकार". Hindustan (in Hindi). 21 December 2021.
  2. ^ "धान खरीदो आंदोलन 15 जनवरी से शुरू होगा". Hindustan (in Hindi).
  3. ^ "गाजीपुर में किसान महासभा का धरना प्रदर्शन:2 दिन से चल रहा अखिल भारतीय किसान महासभा का धरना, खाद की कालाबाजारी का लगाया आरोप" (in Hindi).
  4. ^ "केंद्रीय कृषि मंत्री तोमर की टिप्पणी को किसान महासभा ने कॉर्पोरेट ताकतों की ओर से एक चुनौती बताया". Dainik Bhaskar Hindi (in Hindi). 27 December 2021.
  5. ^ "बिहार: अखिल भारतीय किसान महासभा का अनिश्चितकालीन धरना शुरू, यह है वजह..." Zee News (in Hindi). 8 January 2021.
  6. ^ "आक्राेश:कृषि विधेयक के खिलाफ निकाला गया प्रतिरोध मार्च, केंद्र सरकार के खिलाफ नारेबाजी की गई". Dainik Bhaskar. 25 September 2020.
  7. ^ शर्मा, रजनी (28 December 2020). "बिहार के किसान कल करेंगें राजभवन मार्च, इन मांगों को लेकर सौंपेंगे ज्ञापन". www.abplive.com (in Hindi).
  8. ^ "देश में पहली बार महिलाओं की संसद, किसानों ने कहा- अब मोदी के जुमले नहीं चलेंगे". The Wire - Hindi. 21 November 2017.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful. Can a few of these be shown to pass WP:SIRS? Can we ensure the article is safe? Chumpih t 07:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind the second part of SIGCOV states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," all but the last one clearly meet SIGCOV. The point of these sources is they show multiyear, independent reliable sourcing coverage. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For organisations, WP:ORGDEPTH should apply. Granted, to me, they would possibly meet Independent and Secondary. Uncertain re. reliable, as I don't know those publications. WP:SIRS is quite tricky. Chumpih t 14:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC) + 16:35[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG Notable farm union in India and have been covered numerous times for their work and agitations. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify a few sources that meet WP:SIRS? Chumpih t 16:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they can identify any source. Venkat TL, you edited Bulli Bai case at 09:49, 11 January 2022, another page at 09:52, 11 January 2022, and All India Kisan Mahasabha AfD at 09:57, 11 January 2022. The time between Talk:Bulli Bai case and AfD is 5 minutes. How did you read all sources and how did you locate this AfD within 5 minutes? As i can see, you just follow the majority of votes than posting your own thoughts. Your vote cannot be trusted, i think. I assume, you took 2 minutes to reach here, and 1 minute to read the article in question and 2 minutes to read all sources? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are not aware, I am an Indian who has been reading Indian Newspapers and magazines for years. I am aware about the coverage they receive in local newspapers. Unlike folks abroad, I dont need Google to tell me about what I have been reading for years. I dont wish to be pinged again due to concerns on WP:BLUDGEON. Venkat TL (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article right now is a total trainwreck whose only purpose is to promote the subject. However, it appears that some legitimate sources exist for it. Rogermx (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has improvement opportunities and needs cleanup. VincentGod11 (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sikonmina (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly (French band)[edit]

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

This is understandably a french group and there may not be many references in english; however, it may only have played in some small venues and haven't had much coverage. Sikonmina (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1, as no deletion rationale has been provided and none has been brought forth in the subsequent discussion. Nominator has since been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan57Joyceefyt. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 20:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Zhu (violinist)[edit]

Kevin Zhu (violinist) (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)

Delete

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JeffreyViolin (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see there is any argument made against my article? All see is the word delete on this discussion page and in the edit history of the Kevin Zhu (violinist) article "possible unreferenced addition to BLP". If you could elaborate that would be great but if no further argument is made against this article, I feel that I will have stay with my vote. -- JeffreyViolin (talk) 8:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: A one-word nomination by a new editor. HiIAmLarryTomJoe please expand on your rationale, for example providing your assessment of why the subject's win in the Paganini Competition isn't evidence of WP:MUSICBIO criterion 9? AllyD (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable from the sources provided. Mccapra (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Appears notable and the nominator doesn't provide reason for deletion. Neocorelight (Talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per his award winning. Jeffrey Violin, if this is "your" article perhaps you can fix the citations? "Channel, The Violin" is not a proper author name, nor is "Est 2009" a proper part of the website name. awards should not be numbered, and use of words that will go out of date such as "currently pursuing" is not encouraged. Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments in the detailed deletion rationale (that this duplicates an existing article and that a merger isn't worth it because of the unreliable sources) have not been substantially contested or rebutted. Sandstein 08:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Beisan (634)[edit]

Battle of Beisan (634) (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 'Battle of Beisan' or rather 'Baysan' is the same as the Battle of Fahl. There are multiple, and often conflicting, accounts of the events of the Muslim conquest of the Levant, however the accountes related by main primary source, al-Tabari, are pretty clear:



There are a few other accounts, but these are generally briefer. The two accounts above make clear one thing: the battle which this article deals with is the one and the same as the Battle of Fahl: from the location, to the marshes, to the name of the Byzantine commander, his attempt to catch the Muslims by surprise, and the supposed 80,000 Byzantines killed (a completely unrealistic number typical of the accounts of the Muslim conquest).

To be clear, this is how a modern scholar, Fred Donner, reconstructs the events:

Furthermore, why deletion and not merging into Battle of Fahl? The present article relies heavily on non-WP:RS: its main source is a blog by Raghib as-Sirjani who is a urologist and amateur historian affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Given that he repeats verbatim and uncritically the primary sources, he is clearly not a credible source. The present article is a mess of information drawn from different traditions, and a merger with the Battle of Fahl article would only transfer this uncritical assemblage of content there. Constantine ✍ 08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, by considering for while of why should be split into different article, it is because the mention of different battle than Fihl:


furthermore, Khalid Yahya Blankinship in History of Tabari vol 11 add:


so was Yohanan Friedmann in Vol 12 of History of Tabari who mention the separate battle either in page 170-173 and 183 about the mustering of Shurahbil forces to face Byzantine army outside Beisan. that is why im advocating the different article regarding the battle, since if we merge with Fahl, it is practically containing two different battles in one page.

regardless, if we want to resolve by merge and revamping the article, then i suggest the article name should also be changed too. perhaps Battle of Fahl-Baisan..Ahendra (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahendra: I hope you realise that it is not Blankinship or Friedman who 'mention' anything, but that these two scholars are merely editors of parts of al-Tabari's history? Al-Tabari himself says clearly that these are different traditions narrated to him. It is precisely therefore that we rely on modern scholars, and not our own interpretation of primary sources, for such matters. And the modern scholars reconstruct events so that there is a single battle, which has different names: as al-Tabari's source notes, 'The Arabs named that campaign Fihl, Dhat al-Radaghah, and Baysan'. Constantine ✍ 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging some additional users with knowledge on the early Islamic period and/or early medieval military history for their input: Al Ameer son, M.Bitton, AhmadLX, Kansas Bear, Apaugasma. Constantine ✍ 16:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, judging from the sources presented by Cplakidas and a cursory search by myself, it is called the Battle of Fahl in modern academia. I am curious why a blog(which are not WP:RS) and the multitude of non-English sources are needed. I found sources for Fahl quite easily. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the sources presented by Cplakidas. I think part of the confusion stems from the two articles (معركة فحل and معركة بيسان) that have been created in the ar.wiki, despite what the Arabic sources say about "معركة فحل بيسان". M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- If the nom is correct in saying that these are accounts of the same battle, we should have one article on it and the other article should become a redirect. Is this a case of a battle named in both Byzantine and Muslim sources? if so, the article should seek to achieve a synthesis between the two. One of the articles seems fairly sketchy about the details of the Byzantine forces, which points to that one recounting the affair only from the Muslim POV. A proper article would be NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed) entry on Fahl, which basically affirms Tabari, points to the same. Veering off the deletion nomination a bit, there was an occupation of Baysan by Shurahbil, which may not warrant an article of its own. If the two events are so inextricably linked, as Constantine demonstrates using primary sources (reports cited in Tabari) and one of the leading modern authorities on the subject of the conquests (Donner), then such an occupation/siege should be mentioned in the Battle of Fahl article. At the moment, that article, which discusses one of the main battles of the Syrian conquest, is in even worse condition than this article. Al Ameer (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Good work by gidonb and FOARP for finding new references and for gidonb for adding them to the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American football in the Netherlands[edit]

American football in the Netherlands (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)

Unreferenced since 2006, no corresponding NL wiki article, not easy to search for but no significant coverage that I could see in reliable sources. I do see some coverage of individual games on sites like americanfootballinternational.com, but this is not clearly a reliable source (seems to be an amateur site possibly) and anyway does not say much about the game in the Netherlands per se. All the other articles related to this topic (American football in the Netherlands) also appear to be basically unreferenced. FOARP (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! Kudos for your research skills in a foreign language! gidonb (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are no references. On top of that, the page reads like a magazine op-ed. The subject does not fall under any defacto rule - there must be reliable, independent sources to validate all of the information in the page. Multi7001 (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered the existence of sources elsewhere, like the one I quote? Your opinion fails WP:NEXIST. Dutch-language sources count towards notability, just like English-language sources. gidonb (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no references in the page that discuss the subject. Moreover, the topic of a very popular Western sport within a populated European nation is too broad and I don't see the point of having its own page in the articlespace. American football is practiced in all areas of the world. Perhaps this can be summarized to a few sentences or a few paragraphs and added in the American football page, or in the Netherlands page - under the culture section. Multi7001 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you studied WP:NEXIST by now? Whether or not there are sources in the article does not matter! gidonb (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be a TNT case though, since as it stands the entire article is original research. There's also the problem with over-lap with other articles (e.g., the American Football Bond Nederland) meaning merging might be a better solution than keeping. Since it looks like there are some sources I think someone who understands the language needs to give the article a heavy edit (e.g., delete most of the content and start over) so we can avoid that. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, FOARP, for a serious response! I think that the base has been written by or otherwise inspired an enthusiast, who later started a blog on American Football in the Netherlands.[18] The text has passed a lot of scrutiny over time, also on the Dutch Wikipedia, where it is an addendum to the main American football article. I do not think WP:TNT is needed and, for sure, the WP:GNG has been met. Withdrawal would be my recommendation. The relevant warnings were already in the article and WP articles are never finished. The organization meets WP:ORG and has different content. gidonb (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, there must be reliable sources in existence; I understand that they don't necessarily have to be cited. However, in this case, I only found sources for some of the info about the subject that may warrant its own page in the articlespace. The sources and information I found makes the case for some of the information to be merged into existing pages about American football and/or sports in Netherlands. Perhaps there are more sources in Dutch to validate the information in the page, but that requires foreign translation. Multi7001 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Multi7001. Closing editor, please take note. gidonb (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Football Bond Nederland. This is a notable topic, but as it stands the article would need to be greatly improved and reference in order to stand. Redirecting it to the main league is probably the best option at this point. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the logic of the redirect, but it's an imperfect solution since AFBN is a narrower topic. As an example, the current, broader article includes non-AFBN leagues and teams. Of particular importance, the broader topic includes the NFL Europe and the Amsterdam Admirals. The Admirals played in two World Bowls and are arguably the most important American football team ever to play in the Netherlands ... it's the only Dutch team I had ever heard of. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources on Delpher found by Gidonb and FOARP above Mujinga (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sikonmina (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loudblast[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Loudblast (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 previous discussion hinged on Encyclopedia Metallum being a reliable source. It is not. Sikonmina (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Geschichte (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Memories (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Memories (upcoming film), also known as Theengirai

This unreleased film seems to be in post-production limbo. There is nothing in this article that satisfies general notability or the current poorly written wording of future film guidelines. Review of the references shows that they are the sort of typical advance publicity for films, which are not considered either significant or secondary. One of the references refers to release of the film in April 2021 or May 2021.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 CinemaExpress Announcement of film No No Yes No
2 TimesofIndia Advance mention of film No No No consensus No
3 CinemaExpress Discussion of casting - Mentions release that is planned in April 2021 or May 2021 No No Yes No
4 ManoramaOnline Glamour photos of leading lady No No Yes No
5 ETVBharat.com Discussion of teaser in June 2021 No No Yes No
6 TimesofIndia Another advance mention of film No No No consensus No
7 TimesofIndia Yet another advance mention of film No No No consensus No
8 Cinema.Maalaimalar.com Advance discussion of film No No ? No
9 Cinema.Vikatan.com Interview with actor No No ? No
10 TimesofIndia An interview with actor No No No consensus No
11 TimesofIndia A story about a different film No No No consensus No

This article was proposed for deletion by User:Donaldd23 in July 2021, stating: "Non notable future film, fails WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Should be deleted or moved to draftspace until release and then notability can be established." The PROD was removed and a small expansion was made, but it still does not establish notability prior to release. I concur with the recommendation of the PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Rite (band)[edit]

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

Previous deprodded due to "substantial Allmusic bio and three non-trivial Allmusic album reviews". This however only counts as one reliable source. Sikonmina (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Scalzotto[edit]

Alessio Scalzotto (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 actor who has only starred in one notable production, thus failing WP:NACTOR, and has only received secondary coverage in unreliable publications, thus failing WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.
I deeply apologize for the creation of the page. I created the page in a rush and I noticed that the page had many mistakes. I promise to do better and to take the time needed to create a page, using the right information. The actor is indeed non-noticeable and I apologize. I assure you that I will try my best not to make the same mistake again. I hereby confirm that the page should be deleted. I really hope I did this right. MrMikipideah (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMikipideah: don't worry about it, the notability guidelines can be quite byzantine and there's no shame in making an honest mistake. Experienced editors do that all the time. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penpals (band)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, the only feature of this group that meets WP:NMUSIC is the composition of a 1:15 minute long theme song for a 24 year-old anime Berserk (1997 TV series). This act doesn't seem like enough to warrant a Wikipedia article but maybe AFD regulars who review deletion discussions about musical groups can assure me that this accomplishment does make them notable. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a few more references (Japanese language).Hindijux (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The added references do not support notability under GNG or NMUSIC any more than the previous ones did. They are to the band's own media or to articles that discuss other bands. They support possible notability for Hayashi Munemasa, who was a member of this band and has apparent RS coverage for two further bands he formed, but notability is not backwards-compatible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cool[edit]

Nathan Cool (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 individual who appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. BEFORE searches do not return sufficient reliable sources. And the sources that are cited in the article (to the extent they can be located at all) are either (1) articles that the individual appears to have simply written (and not about the subject himself) or (2) are self-published/too closely affiliated with the author to warrant an article. Also it appears that the article was created by someone who may be associated with the subject, so that also raises some eyebrows. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No policy-based consensus was achieved. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 00:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cue Health[edit]

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

Based on discussion with HighKing at Talk:Cue Health... the entity fails at WP:ORGIND. WP:TOOSOON. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion to generate a wider and unbiased consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there may be grounds for notability, but the references have to be centered more on the subject and not repeated coverage of the kit (e.g., [20], [21], [22]) Multi7001 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the articles cited involve the subject's developed COVID-19 kit and funding for the health kit, but does not cover the subject itself. The coverage about the kit could make a case for its own page in the articlespace or a merge in the COVID-19 pages. But with regards to the subject (the company), coverage by Forbes indicates some notability [23], as a nearly $2B valuation is very rare for a company; however, the valuation is a direct result of the health kit and not much coverage of the company itself or its founders. It seems like it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as WP:ATD on the basis that it is likely that this company may be written about in analyst reports and may also be written about outside of the funding and deal announcements given the topic company's growth and profile. But right now, none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and it appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. HighKing++ 15:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm glad I logged back in to add a photo or I wouldn't have seen this rapid deletion nomination. I just did a WP:BEFORE and found more recent coverage of the company, which I added. The coverage includes CNBC reporting that the company is providing test data to Google, so this is about more than its testing device. And a more careful reading of WP:TOOSOON shows that "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." In this case, there are plenty of sources about the company, not just the test: San Diego Business Journal, San Diego Union Tribune, Forbes and TechCrunch. Meets WP:NCORP. This is a good article, and I'm not just saying that because I wrote it. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are considered reliable, even though most of them are just a published piece derived from a press release. However, nearly all of the media coverage of Cue Health is centered around the COVID-19 kit and funding for it. I wouldn't see any problem with their product having its own page in the articlespace. But for the company itself, it seems like it may still be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability, per above. First FDA approved home Covid molecular test. Multi-billion public company. Customers include Google, the NBA and the US Government. Everything sourced with reliable third party media coverage. Converting the article to a Covid test article won't be very elegant. Non-product information includes the public launch and corresponding unicorn valuation. Cidrap [[24]] writes that the company is working on other tests. I did a quick Google search and added a short Newsweek piece from December. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UM Cidrap article is not independent, since its content is merely based on the press release it links at the end. And the Newsweek article is not an independent source either and cannot establish notability, since it is a promotional article with a monetary partnership and affiliate marketing objectives, as disclosed at the bottom. Multi7001 (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be some confusion on whether references that review/discuss/opine on a product/service can be used to establish the notability of the company. In a nutshell, they cannot. NCORP is the guideline to use for articles on companies/organizations *or* products/services. Nowhere in NCORP does it say that the notability (or references discussing) one can establish notability of the other. For example, the Newsweek article added by Timtempleton above says nothing about the company, therefore it cannot be used to establish notability of the company. The point made by Multi7001 - that perhaps the references would assist in establishing the notability of their test kit and therefore an article on the test kit may meet our notability requirements is valid and correct. HighKing++ 16:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • UTC)
  • Comment: The company sources that clearly meet WP:NCORP were pointed out above. An experienced closer will review the sourcing themselves. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are 21 sources and while some editors have vaguely said some meet NCORP, none appear in a position to support their assertion when challenged, other than to reiterate the vagueness of their original comment. Here's an analysis of the sources (I've grouped similar types together where possible) - can you point to any *one* of these sources that meets NCORP? I'm looking for any individual reference that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Thanks.
  • These ones are all clearly based on company announcements. None of these add anything that meets the ORGIND definition for "Independent Content" which is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. San Diego Business Journal, [Fierce Biotech, San Diego Union-Tribune, Reuters and GovTech website references are entirely based and rely on information/interview/quotes provided by the company and/or execs. They have no "Independent Content" and all fail ORGIND
  • DarkDaily reference is based entirely on a company announcement with more information from a blog post and more still from this MobiHealthNews reference which relies on from the FDA. Despite all that, both articles still have next to zero information *about* the company. Both reference fail both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • There are three TechCrunch references. As per WP:TECHCRUNCH this website is not reliable for establishing notability. Leaving that aside, the first article is based entire on announcements and an interview with the founders with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. The next is also regurgitating "more good news" from the topic company and has almost zero information about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The third also has no "Independent Content" failing ORGIND.
  • CIDRAP reference is based on an announcement of a partnership from one of the companies in the partnership and references this Press Release from the topic company, that isn't "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This from Fox Business has zero information on the company and includes information taken from a government test program, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This from CNBC is based on an announcement from the Dept of Health and Human Services and has next to almost no information about the company, just the testing program and the tests themselves, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This from MobileHealthNews has zero in-depth information *about* the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • The Forbes reference is a puff piece and is based entirely on information provided by the company or their execs. I've read is a couple of times but it has nothing that could be classified as in-depth information on the company that didn't originate from the company themselves and there's also a lot that isn't "Independent Content". Fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This next one from Fierce Biotech is based on this Press Release from the NBA (same quotes too) and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Similarly, this letter on the FDA website to the CEO has zero in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Newsweek mentioned above, is three sentences long and says zero about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This CNBC reference is a mention-in-passing and has zero info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Fierce Biotech relies entirely on information/quotes from the company/execs. It has zero information about the company, fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
  • This CNBC reference is part of the PR in relation to the company floating on the Nasdaq exchange. It is a summary of the company's activities to date peppered with interviews/quotations from execs and information available in their prospectus. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
I'm happy to discuss any of the above sources. If you'd like to point to a particular paragraph in any of those articles that meets *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH, just link it below. HighKing++ 20:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CNBC reference looks fine to me, tbh. It's by an established reporter, and talking about a company's activities to date in the context of its latest activities would, I'm fairly sure, qualify as original content. There is also some amount of original reporting, for example:
"'Of the remaining $34.8 million in revenue, $28.9 million was from a "single enterprise customer,"' Cue Health said. Khattak declined to name that customer, but people familiar with the matter confirmed to CNBC that it’s Google. The people asked not to be identified because the information is confidential.....Cue Health could still be a particularly risky bet for investors because the company hasn’t proven it has a market outside of Covid-19 tests."
I haven't looked at any of the other sources given, but this one seems good to me.
Yitz (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets take a close look at that paragraph (I assume its the last CNBC reference). The first part of the para is a direct quote from Cue Health so no "Independent Content" there. The parts associated with "people familiar with the matter" are anonymous and that fails WP:RS. So you're left with the last sentence about an investment being a "particularly risky bet" but the very next para identifies that this info came from the prospectus The company acknowledges that issue at the beginning of the risk factors section in its prospectus. “Our COVID-19 test is currently our only commercially available test,” the filing says. “Our limited commercial operating history may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future performance.” so for me, that's a single sentence which cannot be clearly attributed to the reporter and has no in-depth info on the company. HighKing++ 11:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reiterating the breadth and depth of coverage, for both the company and the tests. You're welcome to challenge Newsweek, CNBC, Fox Business, Forbes and TechCrunch on the reliable sources noticeboard. All but CNBC are listed there already, and none are deprecated, so there will be plenty of discussions for your to review and rehash if you see fit. I don't have time to count but I see Fierce Biotech used to source hundreds of articles [[25]], so there's also consensus that those are good sources. I've had this discussion with Highking and Scope Creep before, but I hope you don't think that the only media coverage worth sharing comes from a company reporter independently coming up with the story? So if a company announces an acquisition or product or funding and it's reported, then it's automatically not newsworthy? Of course not - that would be ridiculous. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be labouring under a simple misinterpretation/misunderstaning of our guidelines - sorry to be blunt - but I'll explain again. There are essentially two types of sources. Those that can be used to support facts within an article and those that can be used to establish notability. You're arguing that the various publications are all reliable - yup, not disagreeing with that, I'm sure they are. You say there's consensus that they're "good" sources - sure, if you mean reliable, fine. But that doesn't mean they meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability which has additional criteria. So yeah - if an article in a noteworthy reliable publication (say the NYT or something) publishes an article (so no connection between publisher and topic company) that relies entirely on a press release for the information (therefore not "intellectually independent" - see ORGIND) then it cannot be used to establish notability *only*. You can go ahead and use it for any other reason. At AfD we don't care about the other reasons, just establishing notability. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. So when I say that an article relied entirely on information/quotations provided by the company/execs, I'm not saying there's a fault or impugning the reputation of the journalist/publisher, I'm only saying that this cannot be used to establish the notability of the company. HighKing++ 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm surprised this was challenged. More coverage added. Fast Company article from today inviting readers to "Meet the COVID-19 testing company behind one of Google’s most coveted perks". It meets *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Might some consider changing their draftify vote? TechnoTalk (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I don't think you understand ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. That article is *entirely* based on an interview with Mr. Sever backed up with info from a standard a company briefing/info pack. Can you point to any part of that article that is in-depth and can be "clearly attributed" to a source unaffiliated with the company? Even the FDA Press Release only talks about the products (which are not the topic for this article) and nothing about the company. HighKing++ 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christo Allegra[edit]

Christo Allegra (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 supposedly made some notable work, but there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of said work: phi face, MARCO and Swen of the Wirble. He has worked for some notable companies, but so have millions of other "freelance artists". Vexations (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not sure what to make of this article. The subject is employed as a Design Director at Spatialize, which is the first sentence of the article and has a primary source. The second sentence leans on an interview, which really should not be used as a reliable secondary source. After that I get lost. The text doesn't document why this digital artist is notable . "He uses his art to express his beliefs on queer politics, WTC, financial data, visualization, and physicalized narrative" doesn't mean anything. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate the notability of this artist. He does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Cardozo[edit]

Nate Cardozo (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)

Entire article consists of the fact that he worked at two organizations (EFF and Facebook) and that he likes brewing beer. This is the definition of an article of minor significance. I have tried searching for additional sources or accomplishments of the subject and have been unable to do so. Does not meet notability. WP:NOR WP:N Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep – the article as written isn't too impressive, but there are quite a few sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook: [26] (characterizing him as "prominent")[27],[28], [29], and others. None of those are perfect sources, but they're arguably enough to establish notability, particularly since he's frequently cited in the press and in books. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – Crucially, all the sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook are about the unique choice Facebook itself made hiring a critic, not about anything that makes the subject himself any more notable than any other public policy critic of one of the largest companies in the world. See: [30] (noting "Cardozo has written acerbically" about Facebook and failing to describe any other notable accomplishments)[31] (noting "Cardozo once wrote in an op-ed" and failing to describe any other accomplishments),[32] (noting Cardozo "certainly hasn’t minced words about his new employer" and failing to mention any other specific accomplishments, [33] (noting one accomplishment as "For years he worked on EFF's annual report ranking tech companies" but failing to describe his particular role or level of involvement or importance). These citations, and a few mentions of the substance of his criticisms in other publications, fail to meet the notability requirement that the subject receive "significant coverage" per WP:BIO [34]. No sources indicate nomination or receipt of a significant award or honor; no sources indicate "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"; and subject is not an entry in a national biographical dictionary. The article would thus appear not to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The references are enough to show the importance, and the article could be expanded to show the context. The sentence about his hobby should of course be removed as non-encyclopedic , but that's no reason for deletion of the article DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in Wired, Ars Technica, and AdWeek is easily enough to demonstrate notability under the usual standards. The above attempted minimization of these sources is not convincing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG's rationale. The content is remarkably skimpy but the references are enough to meet notability guidelines. I am ambivalent about the beer hobby except I note it was a prominently discussed quality of a recent US Supreme Court appointee. Ifnord (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Gansu earthquake[edit]

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

I do not think this event is severe enough for an article since: -Only a small amount of injuries -Minor damage, the amount of damage to homes might seem high, but the buildings in China are very vulnerable to shaking -The earthquake was in a sparsely populated area Reego41 09:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That can be included in the List of earthquakes in 2022 list.--Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – let us always remember that an article is only for SIGNIFICANT events. In the case of earthquake articles the most common attribution to an event's significance is the death toll which is a display of the severity of the event. Damage can be considered but ONLY if it is severe enough to wreak havoc upon not just an individual but at least an entire populous for that matter. Both of these conditions are not present in any way thus implying the lack of significance this event has = not deserving an article of its own (Moctiwiki) (Moctalk with me) 00:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. per emerging consensus and edits to the article during the discussion Star Mississippi 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alibi perfetto[edit]

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

Not notable. Couldn't find any good sources through a google search. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating additional pages for deletion:

Venerdì nero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and

Rito d'amore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

– AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both are movies of a notable Italian filmmaker. Why the should be eliminated? Gianluigi02

  • Keep Films are unrelated other than director and should be discussed individually on their own merits and not lumped together in one deletion discussion. Found reviews at [45] for one of the films, and a review at [46] for one of the other ones. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article for the director has a list of his films. Since none of the articles are more than a bare plot summary with no citations it seems best to keep all of the info together on the page for the director (which itself is barely bare-bones). I looked at the articles in Italian WP and they, too, lacked significant references. Lamona (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to the director's page. Can't find enough to see that they pass GNG or NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the Italian version of the page lists a legitimate and reliable book reference, which itself extensively cites a long contemporary review of the film from Il Messaggero. Also Inland, a journal of cinema studies published by renowed publisher Edizioni Bietti, in occasion of a monographic issue dedicated to Lado published an accurate and long review of the film (the article is available here). I have edited the page accordingly. Cavarrone 13:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: good and reliable sources. I added some sources also to the other two films (Venerdì nero and Rito d'amore).--Alienautic (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After the addition of sources, it appears to meet notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 15:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGuire (solicitor)[edit]

Patrick McGuire (solicitor) (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 lawyer. None of the references are about the subject; they're mainly pointers to cases on which he worked and in which, for the most part, the subject is incidental or entirely missing. He has not held a position of any importance or notability. He does not inherit notability from the cases he's worked on, even were any of them more than the fairly routine stuff one would expect to see a personal injury lawyer engage in.

Previous versions of this paid COI fluff-article found only a couple of (routine PR) stories about the subject. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
As an editor with a COI, I have declared clearly my association with Patrick McGuire and worked in my Sandbox to create a neutral article about this notable Scottish solicitor. The current page does not represent his work well and is not up to date. The sources are indeed not comprehensive. I had drafted a more thorough and well-sourced page in my Sandbox using many reliable sources such as BBC News, Glasgow Times, The Herald Scotland and The Scotsman. I made an edit request asking for approval of the updated content (detailed on the Patrick McGuire Talk page), but my Sandbox page has been deleted in its entirity. This content described how Patrick has campaigned for and achieved legal change in Scotland, how the cases he is currently working on will set legal precedents whether he wins or loses and how he has worked on some of the most high-profile and highly-reported cases in Scotland's recent legal history. Can you advise as to how I can prove Patrick's notability when the suggestions for improvements I make are deleted very speedily without, or so it seems, full review by a number of editors.
Heartmusic678 recently added some requested updates to the Notable Cases section of the current page, so they therefore must feel the additions I am suggesting helped the page. I would be happy to discuss the page further and re post my proposed changes, and I am open to all advice and guidance. Kind regards ShimsCabot (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShimsCabot (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete I had updated links to multiple references that are used in the article over recent days, so that it would be easier for any editors to assess the published material. The articles that I have seen are all reporting on cases where McGuire's firm were at work. In these articles there are quotes attributed to McGuire. There are multiple examples of his firm pursuing damages on behalf of their clients, but I don't see any references that indicate any "campaigning" beyond this. The paid editing aspects here are unfortunate. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial instinct was to delete, based on the fact none of the 18 references provided mention the subject's name. But a quick web search reveals plenty of reliable, third-party coverage. I see three sources which I feel are enough to meet GNG. Article needs some improvement, but I think deletion in this instance is a little hasty. Please note, my initial edit summary said delete, but I did indeed mean keep.[1][2][3]> MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify, @MarchOfTheGreyhounds:. You say 'plenty', but cite only two, one of which - lawyer-of-the-month - is parochial and routine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Maybe I can provide some more sources. All of the following supported the redrafted content I had provided in my Sandbox page. I can provide more if necessary: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] ShimsCabot (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, first off let me apologize for sloppy, tired editing last night, including citing the same source twice. Let me reconsider. What do you think of this source, where McGuire's actions are the focus of the article?
    The bulk of sources provided here by ShimsCabot won't quite cut it, as the subject is only quoted or mentioned in these articles, he isn't their focus. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add another source, on a current subject. Patrick campaigned on behalf of COVID victims and their families calling for a full Scottish Public Inquiry into how the pandemic was handled in Scotland (initially, the Government had said there would not be an inquiry). The article details McGuire's open letter to Deputy First Minister, John Swinney in relation to the scope of the Inquiry and whether it will have the necessary powers to see justice done. ShimsCabot (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also have other sources, not from news outlets, which show Patrick's involvement in Scottish and UK Parliament Justice and Working Committees and drafting/advising on Members' Bills. While they are not 'about' Patrick McGuire, they prove the types of notable work he engages in and how he has been commended for this work. I hope this helps. [13][14][15][16][17]ShimsCabot (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/15661677.thompsons-partner-mcguire-job-much-just-law/
  2. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/15661677.thompsons-partner-mcguire-job-much-just-law/
  3. ^ https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/lawyer-of-the-month-patrick-mcguire
  4. ^ https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1billion-covid-compo-bill-facing-23976591
  5. ^ https://www.thenational.scot/politics/14890421.top-lawyer-blasts-holyrood-ruling-over-tory-union-bill/
  6. ^ https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/legal-action-over-sexual-abuse-claims-taken-against-scottish-football-association
  7. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15777844.lawyer-slams-nhs-scotland-predicts-mesh-scandal-will-costly-thalidomide-pay-outs/
  8. ^ https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/penrose-inquiry-mcguire-calls-for-scotland-to-follow-roi-example-in-compensating-victims
  9. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20114904
  10. ^ https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/96909/campaigners-say-vale-of-leven-c-diff-inquiry-must-result-in-national-action/
  11. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13048103.implants-gagging-order-claim/
  12. ^ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13101890.ashes-inquiry-demand/
  13. ^ https://www.parlamaid-alba.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=12879
  14. ^ https://www.parliament.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=6727
  15. ^ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmscotaf/uc1344-vi/uc134401.htm
  16. ^ https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2021-01-21.29.0
  17. ^ https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-21-01-2021?meeting=13068&iob=118277

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Payner artists[edit]

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

This is a directory of artists currently (as of 2017) signed to Payner, a Bulgarian record label. Lists consisting of only currently contracted artists are non-encyclopedic per WP:NOTDIR and the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Island Records artists. In this case there's no corresponding list of former artists, so no obvious merge target. pburka (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the other AFD you started and just mentioned, it ended with a merge with another article, that was then renamed List of Island Records artists to include both current and former. Same thing can be done here, just rename this article, and list any former artists in it also if anyone feels like adding them. Dream Focus 10:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Island is a large label though with known names. This is clearly a boutique label confined to a small country. It's like comparing a cherry to a watermelon. Nate • (chatter) 16:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete under the rationale of WP:NOTDIR. We have Category:Payner artists in case someone wants to list those who are notable. This is not a list of which the majority of the members are likely to be notable. FalconK (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as from what I can tell this list goes against WP:NOTDIR due to lack of in-depth secondary references about it. Plus, there's already a category about the topic that covers it way better then the list can anyway. Although even if there wasn't a category I'd still be for deleting the list due to the lack of notability/usable references. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Institute[edit]

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

The article has been un-referenced for at least a few years. Before that there was a few dead links to primary sources. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE either. Except for a couple of trivial name drops in a school directory. Which isn't usable for notability. Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenovo OneLink+[edit]

Lenovo OneLink+ (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)

Delete for the same reason as at Lenovo OneLink RockstoneSend me a message! 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulas Hayes[edit]

Ulas Hayes (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 was asked to review this article on behalf of CRM by 28bytes; after a thorough review of available online sources (including newspapers and books during the time period of Hayes’ life) I have been unable to turn up anything beyond quotes from Hayes and a few passing mentions in regional newspapers. Therefore, this article subject does not appear notable per our standards, and unfortunately appears unable to be retained on this site. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Adventures of Pete & Pete. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Fanelli[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since August and I do believe this fails WP:NACTOR (has not had significant roles in multiple notable projects or made prolific/innovative contributions to entertainment). Notable for only one role as a child actress. In most sources I could find Fanelli is only mentioned in passing (like where is the cast of Pete & Pete today?). Sro23 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_16&oldid=1067869932"