Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Véliz[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 17 March 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 11:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yaja Dawuni Robert[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as municipal chief executives are not notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - local political leader, but nothing to suggest notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not playing a notable role either.  ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:03, 20 March 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 11:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Nkrumah[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and purported politician, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for either writers or politicians. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so he isn't automatically entitled to an article just because his father has one -- but this article concentrates exclusively on life trivia about his family and educational background, while not actually saying anything about him that would actually constitute a notability claim as either a politician or a writer.
The claim that he's a politician, for example, is not backed up by even one word about him ever actually being involved in politics in any way that would satisfy WP:NPOL -- and the claim that he wrote a book is metareferenced solely to his own book itself, rather than to any reliable source coverage about his book to get him over WP:CREATIVE as an author. And even the other footnotes that are present here discuss him almost exclusively in the context of his family members, rather than in the context of him doing anything that would constitute a notability claim -- there are a couple of sources about him having opinions, but no sources which demonstrate that he ever did anything "inherently" notable about his opinions (such as actually getting elected to political office.)
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with a lot more knowledge about Ghanaian politics than I have can actually locate and add a genuine notability claim -- but as written, not even one word in this article is a notability claim at all as it stands right now, because people aren't notable just for being sons, husbands or siblings of other people. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Per nomination and WP:NOTINHERITED, being one of the sons of a president can't be sufficient to establish notability especially when there are lack of any other sign of notability. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 12:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage. 119.154.171.192 (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable article as per the nom. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:45, 21 March 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. and with this many disparate opinions, none is likely with a relist. The 1E concerns have been (mostly) addressed, and a rename or merge does not require continued AfD. Star Mississippi 14:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Miller (motorcyclist)[edit]


Brandon Miller (motorcyclist) (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 motorcyclist with no demonstrable significance or lasting coverage in third-party reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Very likely to be a WP:AUTOBIO: (Redacted). --benlisquareT•C•E 23:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Sources appear to be rather dated and subject is not particularly of interest anymore. Clear COI due to the article edit history. Unless someone can bring a significant reputable source to the table to indicate the subject is of importance, I vote for deletion. Davwheat (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I disagree with the motion. This man is no longer that much insignificant after the software malware injection debacle. 187.150.112.92 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — 187.150.112.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • In which case, a new article would be better suited to this person, removing the "(motorcyclist)" in the title. I'd argue the vast majority of this article's content is unrelated to any potential future article about the subject. Davwheat (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        A new article wouldn't be needed, you could simply move this one to a more appropriate disambiguation; however the issue is that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an article in either topic area. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability, see WP:SUSTAINED. I think node-ipc mention on npm (software) should cover this sufficiently. Xfix (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that all the motorcycle content fails notability requirements, it would mean that the article would only cover the malicious npm module (for those unfamiliar, please see context here and here), which would then potentially make the page fail WP:BLP1E. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • "all the motorcycle content fails notability requirements". How does it fail when cited to multiple WP:RS? Please cite the pertinent guideline to support your statement. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • IP, you can disagree as much as you want, but unless you're able to provide reliable secondary sources demonstrating WP:GNG it's WP:Crystal or simply your own opinion. So far the only 2 sources which could be RS about the controversy that have been mentioned on Wikipedia that I've seen have been IT News and Bleeping Computer. Neither of these demonstrate notability for the person. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sources are dated" isn't a legitimate deletion rationale. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and sources do not become unreliable or invalid because they are from a few years ago. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Easily WP:BLP1E. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 01:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Motorsport. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alternatively, keep and rename to "Brandon Miller (malware distributor)" to better reflect his notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.133.36 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — 159.196.133.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I agree with this sentiment entirely. Brandon Miller was never known as a motorcyclist, he didn't win any tournaments of notority. This is like giving a wikipedia article to all who won a participation prize in little league sports. This wikipedia article was even written by him, the picture uploadet is uploaded by him.
    It would probably be a good idea to rename the article as you say, instead of removing it as it only helps this bad faithed actor in his damage control.
    This article is now of public interrest, not because of anything related to motorcycling, but distribution of malware and bad developer practices. 212.97.250.0 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) — 212.97.250.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, the subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC. Obviously disagree with some demands of rename as that would make it an attack page. There shouldn't be a page on a non-notable person whatsoever. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 12:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would that constitute an attack page? Brandon Miller is the center of a current controversy, of course there is merit for an article about that. 212.97.250.0 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Computing. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this AUTOBIO fails GNG; Recent coverage regarding an alleged malware distribution focuses on the distributing of the malware itself, not on the distributor, and even if SIGCOV existed in this context, I'm not convinced that BLP1E is cleared. As far as being a motorcycle racer, WP:NMOTORSPORT is not even close to being met. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Neutral now; subject actually *does* pass NMOTORSPORT as a land speed record holder on an electric motorcycle as described here. The article itself may also actually likely doesn't count towards GNG in my opinion, but indicates greater potential for it, as well as provides a further claim to significance. If there is more coverage on the subject in regards to the malware incident, this could be a pass. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the points raised by EnPassant. The bar of BLP1E is cleared by his passing of NMOTORSPORT and by the continuing coverage of peacenotwar, including here. GNG is met. Additionally, the article has been substantially improved since the AfD was started; the closing admin should strongly consider disregarding the earlier delete !votes. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Brandon Nozaki Miller (developer)": even though it may pass NMOTORSPORT as GhostOfDanGurney said, he became notorious due to the malware "incident" --Anonimo88 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I support a move to Brandon Nozaki Miller if this article is kept; this would suffice as there is no other article with that title (just a redirect to subject article) making further disambiguation beyond his middle name unneeded. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient SIGCOV to pass BASIC. SN54129 18:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see enough coverage of Miller either as a motorcyclist or due to the malware incident to pass GNG and justify a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Brandon Nozaki Miller. I vote that we rename this page since the person in question is notable for more than just motorcycling at this point, and link to peacenotwar (malware) for more detailed information about his cyberterrorism. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Brandon Nozaki Miller or peacenotwar (malware) and remove extra content in this article promoting the creator's biking escapades. After Brandon's mass distribution of malware via the open-source node-ipc, I don't see how he is anything other than noteworthy — even if for all the wrong reasons. However, he has certainly not made himself infamous for being on a bike, so that information is not relevant. —AddieMaddie talk | contribs 19:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose moving to peacenotwar (malware); a new article can be created there without it affecting this AfD at all. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I went ahead and created Peacenotwar (malware) and added some basic information. I'll see about adding more information along with some more sources when I have time, but I invite anyone interested to help by expanding it. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does not fall under BLP1E, as he's apparently notable for both his motorcycle records (as evidenced by writeups in several cycling publications) and this malware issue, which is a more recent story (which also negates the claim the subject falls short of WP:SUSTAINED. He also very clearly meets WP:GNG because there are multiple WP:RS covering him, many of which are already in the article. We don't delete things because we don't like the article subject or simply because it began as an AUTOBIO, when it's perfectly salvageable. Deleting this would fly in the face of our own guidelines. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or merge to Peacenotwar (malware). BLP1E should not apply as his record-setting (which is a WP:NMOTORSPORT plus) and malware distribution are distinct events with separate coverage. Motorcycle career sigcov, while not plentiful, is present Motorcycle.com and Lehigh Valley Live. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to peacenotwar (malware). The malware itself is notable, but Brandon Miller is not independently notable outside of the malware incident. His motorcycle career does not seem to be all that notable judging by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and at most all that would need to be "merged" to the malware article is a one sentence summary of Miller's motorcycle career for background on who he is. So in practice there wouldn't be much to merge. Endwise (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are Motorcycle.com and Lehigh Valley Live not reliable enough or not significant enough, in your opinion? I dispute the notion that this subject is not independently notable from peacenotwar. GNG is met based on those two sources alone covering his motorcycling, in my opinion, which speaks to a lack of a WP:BEFORE check on the part of the nominator. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to peacenotwar (malware) per Endwise. Not independently notable; fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is not significant about these sources; I still don't think Endwise answered that either? [1] [2]. Two sources is all that is needed to pass GNG, which these two clearly accomplish, and also have nothing to do with the malware, making a merge highly inappropriate here per WP:NOMERGE point 3, "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.". -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbound Evil[edit]

Unbound Evil (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, lacking significant coverage by independent sources as indicated per WP:NF. Inclusion in databases like RadioTimes and IMDb and being included in self-entered award-mill film festival websites does not constitute notability. Coverage needs to be significant, independent, and from a reliable source. BOVINEBOY2008 20:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the article has got very few references but the movie seems notable because as per the article, the movie won several awards. Thanks. Afzlfc (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the awards listed are notable. Not all awards garner the same level of notability, and these awards all seem to be from organizations that do not receive any significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 08:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add that the awards are given out on a monthly basis, so this poses an issue as the award isn't very discerning. The submission page gives off the strong impression that it's a vanity award, particularly given the part stating "Trophies are optional, are not included in the submission fee and all Winners may order the trophy by paying production costs and shipping costs." The general rule of thumb is that if you have to pay for your award AND the submission process, it's an awards mill. Most award granting institutions give you the statuette/award for free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried searching for sourcing, hoping to save this. However there's just not a lot of coverage out there. To be honest, I am also having trouble establishing notability for the director or his other film, C.L.E.A.N.. I'd recommend taking the other film article to AfD and perhaps also the director's article. It's possible that there's more coverage in Croatian that isn't coming up via a search, but I'm leaning towards this likely not being the case given what I've found and the fact that the articles all lean very heavily on establishing notability via vanity awards. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Rusnack[edit]

Troy Rusnack (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 musician. PepperBeast (talk) 20:20, 17 March 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Women's Hockey Africa Cup of Nations squads[edit]

2022 Women's Hockey Africa Cup of Nations squads (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 lot of red links and not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following:

2022 Men's Hockey Africa Cup of Nations squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to BATM Advanced Communications. ✗plicit 23:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilant Technology[edit]

Vigilant Technology (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 NCORP. No secondary sourcing Slywriter (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Radio[edit]

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

Before search does not come up with any independent sourcing. Article is currently unsourced and promotional. Slywriter (talk) 20:08, 17 March 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 leans strongly towards keep after contributions that added additional sources. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 05:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Di Marco[edit]

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

Another resume, if all TechnologyOne content was removed from this page it'd be very short. Perhaps a merge is in order with the removal of irrelevant content? Thirty4 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to TechnologyOne. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've posted some COI edit requests for this article that may help address these concerns. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mary! I still believe the page should be merged with TechnologyOne, even with new edit requests. The only portion that I could see establishing more individual notability is the sourced "longest-serving chief executives of an ASX-listed company", but even then, that information would still be relevant at the company's page. Di Marco's page reads as WP:RESUME. Thirty4 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback! I don't know that I agree – Di Marco's clearly accrued extensive media coverage throughout his lengthy career, including coverage focused primarily on him and not his company. (Examples: The Australian, Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review again.) The documentation for {{Like resume}} states, "An article that merely summarizes the subject's career is okay, as long as it's written in a neutral tone and the subject meets the requirements for notability." I believe the amount of media coverage here meets the WP:NBIO standard. However, I of course defer to the community consensus. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is extensive and significant coverage as per Mary Gaulke. WP:RESUME is about attempting to publish non-notable information about oneself...this article is backed up by extensive articles in major publications. WP:BEFORE should be performed before nominating an article for deletion.Jacona (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jacona. There is substantial RS on the subject--including the older offline articles (that I have accessed and checked via Newsbank and The Australian--work that should rightly have been done prior to AfD (WP:BEFORE)). Cabrils (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:39, 24 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HexD[edit]

HexD (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 genre that hasn't received any traction or significant coverage outside of bandcamp blogs and a few passing mentions elsewhere. CUPIDICAE💕 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The genre is being discussed on social media, Reddit, etc., but it has not reached WP:Reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Personally i think this has a good chance of passing our coverage thresholds in the future, but for now it's as you said. YuriNikolai (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* If this is not notable enough for its own page, is there anywhere we can put this genre somewhere on the wiki, such as a section on a page? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another comment, I found this source that talks about the genre, https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-planes/2020/08/glitchcore-surge-rap-soundcloud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraminxsolver (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards Keep, because I have started the Draft about Plugg (another trap subgenre), and while looking for sources for plugg I was coming across decent posts about hexd (off the top of my head one of them was called "Guide to Soundcloud's Demonic Underground"). Another thing is that some other user tried to edit my draft abot plugg too but, confusingly, he started to write about hexd there, so I had to delete his contributions. Needless to say he had another decent source that was describing this hexd genre. Bandcamp specials are also usually pretty detailed, so that's why I suppose the main concern with the article is laziness of the creator rather than insufficient notability.
Another thing that may be useful to explore while looking for good sources for this hexd subgenre is that it is known by at least two other names, namely surge and sigilkore. Sigilkore has it's own dedicated descriptive sources mentioning bitcrushing and all that stuff.
The issue is the authoring. If the author of this article is unwilling to work more on it, it's probably going to get deleted as a lazy attempt. I have no interest in hexd right now to improve it as well. The issue I am concerned with is I suspect topic has significant coverage yet poor presentation. And I am unsure whether it would be allowed to re-create this article with more sources later when it gets deleted now? So, weak keepPDDisPDDat (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the special about "soundcloud demonic underworld" outlining the current wave of soundcloud rappers, also touching those in "hyperpop" and "hexd" categories:
Comment Sources on sigilkore:
Weird thing is that all these teens right now are are basically making hexxed glitched hyper-electronic trap about how hard they are but every one of them calls it their own name. Like, you would probably find no difference between hexd and sigil sound-wise and aesthetics-wise, but these labels are used by different soundcloud-to-bandcamp producers claiming that their thing is unlike anything else. It doesn't help that journalists desribing the said "genres" are falling for it and categorizing them as separate entities (tongue-in-cheek, even though even they acknowledge that all these "genres" are basically the same genre, referring to the No Bells Soundcloud special)
For instance, googling for "sigilkore hexd" bring up the situation I described. The same type of music goes by million names, among them hexd, sigilkore, surge, hexmusic, crushed, glitchcore and what else. It's natural that the journalists usually pick one or else this would be daunting to list all these names upon every mention PDDisPDDat (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel like this genre has become notable enough for it to have its own page. There have been hundreds of releases under it and I don't see why it's not noteworthy. 58.170.69.160 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe the content could be merged to SoundCloud rap or trap music (or EDM trap) per the Complex source from Pyraminxsolver which discusses the genre as a new generation of SoundCloud music and describes it as "a sort of lo-fi trap sound" (also note that another name for the genre is "crushed trap" according to Complex). Alduin2000 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soundcloud rap is a better destination, in my opinion. Trap is still very much a street black genre and suddenly including hexd as a subsection is going to frankensteinize the trap article. EDM trap is a very distant (both in time and in scenes overlap) phenomenon in regards to hexd. PDDisPDDat (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Hyperpop would be an even better destination for the merging. But those familiar with hyperpop should probably voice their opinion as I am not an expert in either of the two. PDDisPDDat (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to come to consensus on a merger destination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not linked to any other article and surely you would be some artiste's bios having some mention of it. It would be sub-sub-sub-genre that is invisible in the naked light. Perhaps if its still going in a couple of years and there more links it could be recreated. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems reasonable to merge it to Mumble rap#SoundCloud rap scene if not deleted and assuming a couple or three can be found. If somebody went to length of creating the article there must be quite a big group associated with it. scope_creepTalk 14:08, 26 March 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 Restart individually. This is too complex for a bulk nomination, renominate 1 at a time please so there is time to look at sources offered Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCEC Season 16[edit]

TCEC Season 16 (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 consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCEC Season 21 show that the articles on all the individual TCEC seasons violate numerous Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOR, WP:GNG, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DUE, and so forth, and so aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. B2TF (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons listed above:

TCEC Season 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TCEC Season 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MaxBrowne2 in the other AfD. All or nothing. If we delete the S21 and S22 articles, we should delete all the other articles as well, including the ones that did get mention in other media. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not Wikipedia policy to delete articles about subjects covered in reliable third party sources just because other related articles might not have the same coverage. Please see WP:AON Samboy (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the outcome of the last AfD, did you try to just redirect? In any case, redirect unless one of these can be shown to meet the GNG. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposer of the last AfD made a fairly strong case in that AfD that TCEC Season 14 through TCEC Season 20 were notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, which is why they didn't include those articles in the last AfD. There was an IP address who argued against the proposer and said that none of TCEC Season 14 through TCEC Season 20 were notable, but the arguments of that IP address are wrong, as according to WP:PRIMARY Matthew Sadler's, Guy Haworth's, and Nelson Hernandez's articles are allowed precisely because they are published in the reputable journal ICGA Journal. In addition, Matthew Sadler's two articles about TCEC Season 21 in the New in Chess Yearbook [3] and the New in Chess Magazine 2022/1 [4] are valid sources for TCEC Season 21 because of WP:PRIMARY as well, since New in Chess is a reputable publication, which with the other sources found such as [5] means that TCEC Season 21 should never have been deleted and redirected in the first place. 96.63.208.23 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Hobit. Pavlor (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While WP:THREE is not Wikipedia policy per se, finding three third party links is a strong indication of notability: 1) G. Haworth; N. Hernandez (2019). "TCEC14: the 14th top chess engine championship" (PDF). ICGA Journal. 41 (3). International Computer Games Association Journal: 143–151. doi:10.3233/ICG-190117. Retrieved 27 November 2020. 2) Sadler, Mathtew (7 November 2019). "The TCEC14 Computer Chess Superfinal: a perspective". ICGA Journal. 41 (3): 152. doi:10.3233/ICG-190116. (note: Different DOI, different article) 3) https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/tcec-season-14-superfinal-2019/ published by chess24.com. While three is enough, I haven’t seen a compelling case for why Chessdom doesn’t help establish notability, e.g. "TCEC Season 14 – the 14th Top Chess Engine Championship". Chessdom. 12 March 2019. (that’s four) "Stockfish continues to dominate computer chess, wins TCEC S14". Chessdom. 1 March 2019. (that’s five) etc. As an aside, The Chess Programming Wiki covers this event too but its coverage is not as good as what I see here on the Wiki. Samboy (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument made against Chessdom on the other AfD by the proposer essentially says that "Chessdom sponsors TCEC so isn't independent enough to be used as a source for TCEC seasons". The same argument in association football would read "Etihad Airways sponsors Manchester City F.C. so isn't independent enough to be used as a source for Manchester City", and "Papa John's sponsors the EFL Trophy so isn't independent enough to be used as a source for the EFL Trophy". I'll let people come to their own conclusion as to whether this is a a strong enough case against Chessdom. I don't really care since one does not need Chessdom to prove the notability of these articles. 96.63.208.23 (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Restore TCEC Sesaon 21: Unlike the case for the other AfD for TCEC Season 21 and TCEC Season 22, Matthew Sadler was not involved in TCEC in TCEC Season 20 and prior. That automatically makes Matthew Sadler's articles in the ICGA Journal reliable secondary sources, which are already provided in the articles. Additionally, as stated in the other AfD by Skiminki, Matthew Sadler's book The Silicon Road to Chess Improvement [6] contains information about TCEC Season 17, TCEC Season 18, TCEC Season 19, and TCEC Season 20, and since we have established that Matthew Sadler is a reliable secondary source for seasons prior to season 21, that provides us with a second reliable source. While Nelson Hernandez is involved in TCEC, since the articles are published in the reputable journal ICGA Journal, the articles by Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez can be used as a source according to WP:PRIMARY (in contrast to what an IP address in the last AfD was claiming). That alone is enough to establish notability of every single one of these seasons. In addition, TCEC Season 20's article also already has a source from a local Philippines news source in Panay called Panay News [7], which is independent of TCEC. These articles are all better sourced and have more content than i.e. Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2020, Steinitz Memorial, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Chess Championship yet we don't see any AfD discussions about whether the article on Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2020 or Steinitz Memorial or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Chess Championship should be deleted. Furthermore, precisely because of WP:PRIMARY, the New in Chess Yearbook [8] article on TCEC Season 21 by Matthew Sadler can be used as a source in TCEC Season 21, as well as the article about the TCEC Season 21 WCC bonus by Matthew Sadler in the New in Chess Magazine 2022/1 [9], as New in Chess is a reputable source. This coupled with this [10] from the Evanston Round Table and a few other sources already available (such as [11] and [12] by chess24 and [13] by lichess) means that TCEC Season 21 is notable enough to have its own article and should never have been deleted. 96.63.208.23 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Wikipedia was set up for the conservation of knowledge not the destruction of the availablility of it. TCEC is the most notable in its niche. oscar (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. This is a multi-article nomination; but discussion has mainly centered on the sourcing for only a select few of the seven nominated articles. As such, most of the keep comments have not addressed the scope of the nomination and there isn’t really a convincing consensus that specifically looks at all seven articles individually. Discussion has had little participation; probably because it is a bundled AFD which makes reviewing complicated. Given the evidence of some independent coverage in relation to TCEC season 16 (and some for Seasons 20 and 21) as mentioned above; there appears to be a potentially convincing argument for keeping those three seasons. However, I am not seeing the same level of sourcing in all of the other seasons of TCEC in this multi-article nomination. Each season really needs to be evaluated independently. I suggest closing this nomination and re-nominating each article individually. That would allow for better community participation and would make determining a consensus less complicated. 4meter4 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other commenters found third party stuff for seasons 17-20. I meant season 14, not 16. Samboy (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadler, Mathtew (7 November 2019). "The TCEC15 Computer Chess Superfinal: a perspective". ICGA Journal. 41 (3): 164-167. doi:10.3233/ICG-190112.
G. Haworth; N. Hernandez (2019). "TCEC15: the 15th top chess engine championship". ICGA Journal. 41 (3). International Computer Games Association Journal: 153–163. doi:10.3233/ICG-190115. Retrieved 27 November 2020.
[14]
[15]
  • Sources for TCEC Season 16 include
Sadler, Mathtew (6 February 2020). "The TCEC16 Computer Chess Superfinal: a perspective". ICGA Journal. 41 (4): 253-258. doi:10.3233/ICG-190123.
G. Haworth; N. Hernandez (February 2020). "TCEC16: the 15th top chess engine championship". ICGA Journal. 41 (4). International Computer Games Association Journal: 241–252. doi:10.3233/ICG-190122. S2CID 212566494. Retrieved 27 November 2020.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
Including the chessdom articles on both seasons [20] [21], by User:Samboy's requirements, both TCEC Season 15 and TCEC Season 16 are notable. 96.63.208.26 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This is interesting and well written OR but does not belong in Wikipedia. Springnuts (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are just box scores. Individual TCEC "Seasons" aren't noteworthy, and aren't the subject of substantial independent coverage. Some of the individual seasons could be mentioned on the main TCEC article, but many don't even need that. We don't even need the redirects - they are more promotional than useful. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this article as well as all of the other listed articles. As much as I am a fan of TCEC, its individual seasons are not notable. If anyone wants information about TCEC seasons, they can very easily go to TCEC's own wiki. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least some appear to be notable. And WP:AGF only takes us so far. The new account which started the previous AFD has stopped editing. And the account that started this AFD was created one day after the previous AFD was closed. I would like a little more scrutiny before we delete these articles. This mass nomination is tainted and unsuitable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that the last number in my IP address changes every few days for some reason. All the 96.63.208.XX IP addresses on this discussion are the same person (me). I live in an apartment so the 96.63.208.XX addresses are the IP addresses my landlord's ISP provides to everybody living in this apartment complex. Which resident in my apartment has which address seems to change from day to day. 96.63.208.26 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering this AfD entry is now three days overdue, and has far too much discussion for a relist, I suggest the closing admin just close this as “No consensus” and a note for the nominator to only list one article at a time for deletion (linking to other deletion discussions as needed) Samboy (talk) 20:51, 27 March 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 clear consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. R. Morlan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article cites only five sources. Two are website of publishers associated with the subject; these are not independent of the subject and are primary sources, which can't be used to establish notability (see WP:PRIMARY). One is from a personal website which isn't generally accepted as a reliable source, according to WP:USERG. The other two are short obituaries; I don't think obituaries can be used to establish notability since almost any deceased person can get one. There is no evidence that the subject's work has been considered influential, widely reviewed, subjected to critical attention or won any awards. JMB1980 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 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 was that the subject passes WP:NARTIST. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Stoop[edit]

Pieter Stoop (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 painter PepperBeast (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Spinosa[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable artist. PepperBeast (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Obvious"? If you have some Spanish-language sources to help establish notability, please point them out. PepperBeast (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Read it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unsourced page on a fan wiki, not WP:RS PepperBeast (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But what it says is worth noting, and bears on this discussion. Given the number of awards and exhibitions, articles in Spanish language Ecuadorian newspapers would presumably exist.
Your comment that it is "unreferenced" conveniently ignores the content. Here is the English translation, which I shall delete as it will be deemed a WP:Copyvio. It's in the editing history. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. It's unhelpful, and it's as much copyvio in the edit history as it is in the page content. PepperBeast (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the Costa Rica perspective (saw the notice in the Wikiproject page...), there isn't much or anything at all to establish this individual as relevant to Costa Rica, and doesn't seem his work is otherwise notable related to that country apart for having participated in an exhibition? The article in Spanish Wikipedia is also just a list of participation and awards. Even doing an image search on a couple of search engines, there aren't results about his visual work, it all points to lack of notability. --Roqz (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independent sources do not establish that WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read Spanish, but the sourcing doesn't establish that he meets NARTIST despite the claims on the Wiki linked above. There's some conflation with the chess player as well. Star Mississippi 13:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per unanimous consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space Saves Society[edit]

Space Saves Society (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 indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On The Line (Michael Jackson Song)[edit]

On The Line (Michael Jackson Song) (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)

On The Line (Michael Jackson Song)

Song article that has no references, and so neither establishes musical notability nor is verifiable. Created twice in article space. Already moved to draft space once, and re-created in article space with no references, so that requesting deletion of the article is the only choice left. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 17 March 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. this non-notable resume and possible hoax per unanimous consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Blake Smith[edit]

Joseph Blake Smith (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)

Notability. This is a true shocker.... lots of "sources" which (if not behind paywalls) do not mention the perp. Barrel scraping, and not even the right barrel. I despair. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing notable, per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no signs of actual notability. Way too much coatracking about other people who may be notable, but that is to be covered in articles on them, not in an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for every attention-seeking Joe Smith who comes down the pike. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a WP:RESUME/magazine article, and the middle name inclusion screams that even more (and source #9, please enjoy the laugh, because...huh?!). Going by the creating editor's history, I don't know if it's even an editor or a shambolic article-bot of some kind (re: source #13). Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty obvious Chaddude (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly a hoax. The first several sources didn't even mention the subject, a search didn't come up with any independent RS. Jacona (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter de Caen[edit]

Walter de Caen (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 orphan. This article was created based on a 'just-so' origin legend story appearing in a non-WP:RS 19th century American family history source, claiming the subject was related to famous people and giving a nonsensical descent to an American immigrant based on absurd false-etymology of the surname. I have now replaced the entire content with authentic material about the man, but what is left is a stub account of 'just another Anglo-Norman landholder', with no particular claim to notability, and no expectation of significant future expansion. Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the latter first, I would say no. Prosopography is, by definition, an attempt to characterize an entire class of people, and as such inclusion does not demonstrate individual notability, any more than a published library catalog indicates that a book it contains is notable. That said, it turns out there is a potential merge target that had escaped my notice, an article on his son Robert fitz Walter of Horsham, which though currently only cited to the same prosopographical collection has a stronger claim to its subject being (presumed) notable as Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. I would not be opposed to such a merge, though adding a de novo sentence about Walter to that article would accomplish the same thing. Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not deserving of a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per author request on the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Salahov[edit]

Ali Salahov (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)

Lack of notability. Sources do not cut the mustard. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 17 March 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)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autostrada A24 (Italy)[edit]

Autostrada A24 (Italy) (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)

Notability and lack of references Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GEOROAD, national level highways are typically notable. Also the Italian version of this article has 32 sources that could be used for expansion. Jumpytoo Talk 17:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 100-mile motorway not notable? Let's use a modicum of common sense. I've added one source to the article, but very many more are readily available. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD. This is the kind of nomination we don't need to waste time researching and discussing.Jacona (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Mane[edit]

Suresh Mane (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:NPOL. Hasn't won a single election yet - either at the state level or federal level. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. would've expected more coverage for a "founding member of BSP", but that seems to be puffery. Hemantha (talk) 12:10, 19 March 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 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Tawde[edit]

Khushboo Tawde (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 a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. I can't see lead roles or any significant work. Cinzia007 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC) struck statement by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of having multiple significant roles to meet NACTOR. Having linked article is not sufficient, needs to be backed up by independent reliable sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, no indication of notability. lack of significant coverage. Jeni Wolf (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Das[edit]

Vipin Das (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. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandlife. UPE FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of meeting WP:DIRECTOR since no reviews of his works are cited. Interview sources are WP:PRIMARY which do not contribute to notability. Can't find in anything significant in BEFORE search. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 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 against deleting the article. A merge can be considered on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double group[edit]

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

This three-lines article does not contain any definition or description of the concept, and I have not found in in Wikipedia. A Google Scholar search shows that "double group" is a phrase that is used in chemistry and physics, but not in mathematics. I guess that, in mathematics, the topic has another name (possibly universal covering).

So, even if an article on this topic could be useful, these three lines are of no help for writing it, and the best seems to apply WP:TNT, that is, delete it and start a new version from scratch. D.Lazard (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the appendix in Albert Cotton's "Chemical applications of group theory," my impression is that the "double groups" concern the character theory of the double covers of the finite subgroups of the SO(3), so finite subgroups of SU(2). These are the binary subgroups, such as the binary octahedral group S4*, binary icosahedral group A5* etc, and are often denoted by an asterisk. These are special cases of character and spin character tables determined by Frobenius and Schur for symmetric and alternating groups, with well-known general combinatorial rules (hook length formulas, staircase rules, etc, summarised in the text books of G. de B. Robinson, Gordon James, Fulton & Harris, etc). The labelling by Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams is known from the McKay correspondence, with the diagrams showing the rule for tensoring with the 2-dimensional representation, see [23].
There is always a problem of translating topics from one domain (chemistry) into another (mathematics). This seems to be part of chemistry. It is unclear why this material has been listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Using Mathscinet, it was easy for me to find an Inventiones Mathematicae article reproducing the character tables in Cotton's appendix. User:Petergans's background is known; his edits have been made in good faith. The usual rules of WP:RSs and WP:V have been observed. It was easy to identify F. Albert Cotton and download his text book, with the pages on "double groups". A google search of "cotton applications group theory" came up trumps. Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added another source to the article. This is a real concept in applied group theory in chemistry. It looks like there is enough sourcing out there, including Mathsci's findings, to build a small article on the subject. I wouldn't be opposed to merging the current content to an article that provides more context, such as Molecular symmetry where "double group" is mentioned. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this article, but don't have the resources to expand it. My source is a personal copy of Cotton's book. This treats double groups in the two cases of copper(II) and silver(II) in some detail. However, I feel that, as the treatment is very technical, it would need lots of explanation in this article.
Figgis, B.N.; Lewis, J. (1960). "The Magnetochemistry of Complex Compounds". In Lewis. J. and Wilkins. R.G. (ed.). Modern Coordination Chemistry. New York: Wiley. may be useful; Brian Figgis has made major contributions in the field of magnetochemistry. Petergans (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We're going to need a heck of a lot more than this, the article is almost too technical to be valuable to a general audience here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be useful to have a good page on wikipedia covering this subject clearly and concisely. More is clearly needed but if it's deleted it's going to be a lot harder to do that. I think that there are editors out there than can help make this happen. KeeYou Flib (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: this topic is covered in a Dover book I have on my shelf: "Group Theory in Chemistry and Spectroscopy: A Simple Guide to Advanced Usage" by Boris S. Tsukerblat. If the page stays, I'll look through this and other resources I have and see if I can help. KeeYou Flib (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete (consider merge). If this topic is specific to chemistry, it might be mergeable into molecular symmetry. If it's also attested in physics then that's probably not going to work. In any case it needs to be explained better in mathematical terms — pace Mathsci, while this may not be a mathematical article per se, it is using mathematical nomenclature, and the relationship to the terms' standard meanings should be clarified. (The article currently claims that double groups are from an "extension of group theory", but they seem to be bog-standard groups, just considered together with group actions different from the ones chemists might be expecting.) --Trovatore (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All good points. It's definitely a physics thing and is not limited to molecules - it can be applied to the electronic states of atoms within a crystal, for example, taking spin angular momentum states into account. But since it's probably used more in molecular spectroscopy these days, maybe that merge would work? KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This concerns projective representations of finite groups G. These can be understood as 2-cocycles/Schur multipliers; or, following George Mackey, as central extensions of G. Many have written about the McKay correspondence, e.g. Robert Steinberg[24] who noted that "for each finite (Kleinian) subgroup G of SU2 the columns of the character table of G, one column for each conjugacy class, form a complete set of eigenvectors for the corresponding affine Cartan matrix (of type A, D, or E), ...;" these are also related to Macdonald identities and All That (created by R.e.b.).
Here the objective, however, seems more mundane—to use chemistry/physics terminology to spell out these statements about representations in the language of chemistry and physics (cf Hermann Boerner). Mark viking already added an article on point groups and Mackey's induced representations. Possibly there's a review article in physics. (On Uspekhi they confused Mackey with McKay:[25]) Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I noticed recently that the term is now used in some articles on molecular symmetry, and I couldn't find an explanation in Wikipedia. It should be included and I am glad that User:Peter Gans has taken the initiative and started the article. Yes, it can be developed and explained in more detail, but that is no reason to just delete it. I vote for keeping what we have and continuing to improve it. Dirac66 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important topic that needs to be developed. To give a bit of meat for the general reader, perhaps it should be noted that the identity operation corresponds to a rotation of 4Pi, in contrast to 2Pi for ordinary groups. Also, double groups are important for describing the rotational properties of elementary particles of half-integral spin. Therefore, it has significant applications outside crystal chemistry, although it is important enough there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Editors here have not indicated it could be expanded into (promising) stub level, let alone above stub. It is understood to be a noteworthy topic (though not a full article's worth). Only articles that link to this page are Jahn–Teller effect Molecular symmetry. Strangely enough not linked to from any theoretical science article like group theories, chemisty??; one would expect a mentioning in a "See also" section at least. That merge-into page can be the target of a refined Redirect. As an article, it is too thin; if the merged result grows, then a splitout can be considered. -DePiep (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info on character tables of the 32 crystallographic groups is well-documented off-wiki, but not on-wiki. Bethe has given an English translation of his original 1929 double group article. Physical chemistry treatments like Cotton or Tsukenblat follow Bethe, as well as the 1963 MIT book "Properties of the thirty-two point groups" by Koster, Dimmock, Wheeler & Statz. There's WP:NORUSH for Petergans (and others) to amplify material from the sources. Mathsci (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nu rush indeed. The sentences & sources can sit easily in a parent article, as lng as is needed. Expansion in there can make a separate article viable (but no need or reason to keep an immature paragraph as a separate article). BTW, anyone an idea why this is not linked from from a more generic article, say "Group"? -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear what you mean by "parent article" (Group (mathematics)?) or "immature paragraph". Do you mean "premature"? The stub at the moment gathers WP:RSs under "group theory and applications". It's about character tables of the 32 crystallographic groups, so clearly encyclopedic content. Hans Bethe gave proofs and tables, explained in English in 1963. (Before 1910, Schur's papers had already determined characters of all the irreducible projective representations of and .) Uniform treatments for crystallographic point groups have been devised using the work of Kostant and Rossmann ("McKay's correspondence and characters of finite subgroups of SU(2)"[26]). On WP, all editors can do is find high quality WP:RSs and then summarise them. Bradley & Cracknell, "The Mathematical Theory of Symmetry in Solids: Representation Theory for Point Groups and Space Groups," is also a WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm separating this out from my opinion since it's the interpretation I base my opinion on, and so a matter of my grasp of content and not policy. The lead says a double group is an extension of a group, but I think this is not the best way to put it: the special self-dual operation that is not a spherical symmetry is an ordinary element in the sense of group theory, it's only special in that its semantics is not purely spatial. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sourcing is strong enough and the content now at the article substantial enough that I don't think delete is a reasonable outcome. I don't think merging is a good way to treat this content: it's possible to articulate what double group is purely mathematically although the interest for it arises in physical chemistry. It's really applied mathematics in the best sense of the term and from an editing perspective I think its most findable if it is its own article. I think this kind of content is something we are good at improving at, as seen in this AfD (while most of the work was done by MathSci, three other editors improved the article). — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ShoutAmerica[edit]

ShoutAmerica (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)

Have done cleanup and removed promotional material. What's left does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Slywriter (talk) 14:03, 17 March 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 Procedural close. The article in question has been moved to Detention of Mark Bernstein per talk page consensus, rendering the deletion discussion for Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) centered around WP:BLP1E moot. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian)[edit]

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

Created 2022-03-12 when he was detained, pretty clear WP:BLP1E LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment also oppose moving per the discussion at Talk:Mark_Bernstein_(Wikimedian) there have been many detentions of journalists in the region this doesn't need it's own article especially for 15 days. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BLP1E clearly applies. Lots of people are being detained and most don't warrant their own article. Beyond which, this smacks of WP:RGW and navel gazing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:BLP1E applies, as well as failing WP:GNG. Close. Article has been moved, thus no longer violating WP:BLP1E. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 14:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. There has been an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) is focused on moving this article to one where there is no longer a BLP1E issue (I.E. one that covers the event) since March 12. It does not look like there is any outcome that will result from that which happens to keep this as a biography, owing to BLP1E. The nom, full well knowing that there was a discussion going on and what the probable outcome would be, has put forward an argument that simply doesn’t apply to the most likely outcome of that discussion—that the page is moved to Detention of Mark Bernstein as an alternative to deleting all the content. It is standard that the RM closes in about 7 days, so this hasty AfD makes little sense—this is in many ways a discussion fork that completely ignores the well-reasoned arguments for the move on that very talk with a mere hand-wave on a separate page that makes no argument about the extent of reliable sourcing available for the event. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no realistic likelihood of this passing WP:EVENT. If an article were created listing prominent people known to have been detained I might see an argument for a redirect. But since such a list would likely be limited to people with an independent claim to notability, we are back to square one. - Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the page has been moved to Detention of Mark Bernstein, please note that I substantially support keeping the article, owing to widespread coverage of the event from diverse reliable sources that I and others have noted below. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete - Given the article was already on its way to being renamed/rescoped to be about the event rather than the person, the BLP1E argument in the nomination (and all of the delete !votes thus far) holds no water. The new question is whether it meets WP:EVENT (or WP:GNG). Well, it's one of those cases where we cannot know whether there will be lasting significance because the article was immediately created, so we have to guess at which is most likely (i.e. figure out WP:DELAY vs. WP:RAPID). With the sourcing as it is now, I'd be most inclined to support a merge/redirect somewhere like Censorship of Wikipedia, Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia, or Censorship in the Russian Federation. If coverage continues, we could have a stand-alone article. Either way, there's no need to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect to one of those articles is the only viable alternative I see to deletion. As it stands, I don't see any credible claim to passing EVENT. - Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While both are part of the Union State, Russia is not Belarus. It would not be appropriate to merge the article into an article on censorship within the Russian Federation when the person was not in the Russian Federation at the time of his arrest and (as far as I can tell from reporting) has not been in the Russian Federation since his arrest. His being involved in Russian-language Wikipedia does not make Russia the relevant sovereign state; there are sizeable Russian-speaking populations in Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine, but none of them are a mere part of Russia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close (i.e. keep under the likely new name), per arguments given by Mhawk10; the result of the RM is almost certainly going to be a consensus to move as proposed (even if a dramatic change occurred in the next 1-2 days, it would most likely be related to the current arrest, leaving the arguments for/against the move unchanged). Multiple Russian, Belarusian and US reliable sources satisfy WP:GNG. Boud (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand --ssr (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any policy or guidelines you'd like to cite in support of that 'keep?' -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are all having gudelines that tell us to promote and protect Wikimedia Movement, which we are ALL (including you) are part of. Articles about outstanding Wikimedians help to promote Wikimedia Movement and Wikimedia Foundation is always in favor of such proceedings, like this one. And you here look like the one who goes against Wikimedia Movement. Wikipedia:Gaming the system is the policy you seem to be contrary to. There are also a number of RS like Slate and Haaretz that make the subject undoubtfully notable. And you are against it—so you are against Wikipedia practices and against supporting Wikimedia Movement. You should be stopped right now (and you will be as the notability is proven). --ssr (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he is now one of the world's most famous wikipedia-users. Who is he? The guy who was arrested in that accessory-country during the invasion of Ukraine - for having written on the Wikipedia website.--The name of the incident is less well-known: "The arrest of a wikipedia-user in Byelo-Russia during the country's time of giving material support to Russia's invasion of Ukraine". 89.8.144.217 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. When did BLP1E get revoked or Wikipedians made exempt from it? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. When did Wikipedia stop having articles - no exceptions - about "BLP1E persons"? 89.8.144.217 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand how Wikipedia works. It is an encyclopedia with clear guidelines and policy regarding what is included. It is not a indiscriminate collection of information. We also do not use the project to right great or wrongs or for navel gazing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand that articles can get "voted" into this encyclopedia, on the merits of the article. Clearly you do not understand that part of Wikipedia de facto policy. 89.8.144.217 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Articles are deleted through discussions, not votes. And no article gets "voted in". SN54129 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Mhawk10. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Russian government and Wikipedia already have many stones for the invasion of Ukraine, and even more so that the arrest takes place in Belarus, which in theory is a sovereign country, shows that Moscow's law expands to that country, with Belarus operating in fact. as a satellite state. LLs (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you've lost me. What does any of this have to do with our notability requirements for articles? How does this article meet our WP:PAG? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – Merge into "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". STSC (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another page. Probably shouldn't put it on the main page about the invasion. Maybe another page like Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or a similar page. Redoct87 (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This wouldn't merge well directly with the main article. Although Mark Bernstein's detention is partially a consequence of the Russian invasion, his detention does not effect the Russian invasion. Featuring Bernstein's detention on the main article would be somewhat biased, as his detention is only of major note to the Wikipedia Community, but not to the wider world. Cyber 94 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While merge or redirect is one of the options, I think the better course of action is delete because I don't see any encyclopedic value in the BLP1E article. STSC (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Mhawk10. There is aleady an ongoing discussion on the issue, a deletion nomination clearly isn't appropriate at this time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy; fails WP:BASIC. Could support a merge if a suitable target is found, but the BLP aspects make me wary even of that.
    To the closer: note that those voting to keep, as Ad Orientem points out in one case, do so without citing policy but with arguments to avoid aplenty, such as "it's just notable" and "I like it".
    There are also no grounds for a procedural close, as AfD policy is explicit that If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. SN54129 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • With due respect, those supporting a procedural close are arguing that basically all of the WP:BLP1E/WP:NBASIC arguments are going to be moot once the page move is closed, which makes the arguments for deletion incoherent. Considering there was already a conversation well underway (and relatively close to finishing) on the article talk page, opening an AfD is a discussion fork that doesn't have an actionable end. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to be absolutely clear, the detention passes WP:GNG and as attracted international attention. This includes coverage in The Verge, Indo-Asian News Service, Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata, Colorado Springs Gazette. You can also find substantial coverage in Haaretz, i24News, and Israel Hayom. The event, therefore, was very widely covered in diverse sources, and an article on the event is more than likely notable. The point of the move request on the page is to gain consensus to move the content to bring us in line with WP:BIO1E, which states that When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Rather than deleting the content that has been written, as you suggest, a page move and a restructure would be a suitable WP:ATD. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. But your disregard of policy and determination to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion is duly noted. SN54129 17:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Aside from my !vote, I have responded to two editors. Each of those responses were on different topics from each other: my response to Rhododendrites was a narrow objection to a merge into an article on Russian censorship; my response to you is a direct response to the parts of your comment that denied that there was a notable topic to be covered here. I don't believe that any of this can reasonably be described as forcing my point of view into this by flooding the page with an enormous quantity of comments. I'd kindly ask that you please strike your baseless accusation that I have determination to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no personal notability beyond being very mildly punished. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very mildly punished? He got arrested for editing Wikipedia. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose procedural close – The outcome of this AfD discussion would apply to the same article under any new article title. STSC (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the point is not time served or severity of the sentence but the governmental physical censorship of a prominent Wikipedian (not navel-gazing if the navel is gaze-worthy). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E. Further comment withheld. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. The detention has been covered widely in reliable sources, both in English (RSP-greenlit The Verge, RSP-greenlit Haaretz, etc.) and in other languages. This makes it appropriate to cover somewhere on Wikipedia. I think a reasonable outcome could be merging to a section in a larger article on censorship during the war, as there's not that much to say here, but I also think keeping would be alright. There is only very minimal coverage of him from before the detention ([27]), but with the article now moved to cover the event, the WP:BLP1E concerns from other !voters do not apply and I presume will be discounted in the close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The recent move appears to have been cynically calculated solely to protect what is still a BLP in all but name from deletion. Further, the WP:EVENT it now claims to cover, does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. In particular the long-term significance is likely to be somewhere around zero. I therefor reaffirm my support for DELETION. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the move discussion start before the deletion nomination? --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion Mr. Bernstein has received notable news coverage, as others have already detailed. Please see WP:COVERAGE and WP:NOTBLP1E. That being said, I'm not entirely sure if this should be kept in the article format, I might consider merging it into Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is also being afd' at the moment. Please note I've proposed moving that page to Wikipedia and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as well. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. A compliance with WP:COVERAGE can be seen. Most recently an article came up in the largest Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta. Also according to WP:NOTBLP1E he is both activist against Lukashenko regime as well as known Wikipedian who has received grants for his work from Yad Vashem (can be seen here on page 31). Plus how many people get arrested for editing Wikipedia? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk). 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or Procedural close). The article has meanwhile been renamed to the better suitable title "Detention of Mark Bernstein", which is a notable topic about an event covered by reputable, independent, diverse (WP:DIVERSE), and reliable sources (WP:RS) internationally (WP:GEOSCOPE), in some cases to quite some depth (WP:DEPTH), and therefore easily meets WP:GNG. It meets WP:EVENT per being "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". In addition to keeping the article "Detention of Mark Bernstein" we should also keep the redirect from "Mark Bernstein" to this article per the very purposes of redirects (WP:REDIR). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matthiaspaul. --Victor Trevor (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is the first person to be arrested for his wiki-activity, and there is ample coverage of it. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first time a person has been arrested for wiki activity. See Censorship of Wikipedia#France. Cyber 94 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He was threatened with arrest and prosecution, but not detained since he complied. Just a little clarification. Spafky (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall some people having previously been arrested for viewing Wikipedia in China. Thai state-affiliated media also report that someone was arrested in 2021 for "malicious editing" on an article regarding Dr. Yong Poovorawan under a fake news law, so I really don't think Bernstein was the first one arrested for activity on Wikipedia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the better title "Detention of Mark Bernstein". The event is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and also if as mentioned he was an activist against Lukashenko's Regime then perhaps it is better to create an article about him on the subject rather to create an article like this. And on the case of this article. it is better to delete it, as mentioned by several users above, he was arrested for editing wikipedia. Well i dont think so, infact he was arrested because he published several criticism about the current event. and i'm very sure that there are many detained wikipedians out there following the situation. and he coincidentally was one of them -Hunobukokaitobukainokukinkinokukango 11:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other users above as it has significant coverage and should not be deleted. Sahaib (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has a significant coverage, and there are many articles of people who were famous for a single event. I don't think there is a previous instance of someone getting detained specifically because of their Wikipedia contributions; think of the awareness this will bring around the war censorship in Russia and Belarus. You need to put aside your sacred Wikipedian dogmas and think of the bigger picture. To top it all off, there are articles about him in plenty of other languages. Click "random article" and you will find articles about tons of people whose biographies were less important/particular than that of this man – which seems to be the first of its kind, unfortunately. --Spafky (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the event itself is notable enough, as it's covered well in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Even as an event (not as BLP1E), it fails the WP:EVENTCRIT completely. Deletion. STSC (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant international coverage, the event of being arrested (in Belarus based on a Russian law?) for working with Wikipedia in is also significant, and he is one of the most active Wikipedians in Russian language. --Rießler (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply: criteria 2 and 3 aren't satisfied. Alaexis¿question? 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that the move has taken place, I want to stress my support for the keep option. As a follow up on the WP:GNG issue, I would like to further provide several sources of non-English coverage: [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wide international coverage seems well-established. Boud (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Per NoonIcarus, this event has had diverse coverage (not just from Russian sources, but also from Mexico, Italy ([39][40]), Poland, China, Peru, and Turkey). If this turns out to not have much of a lasting effect, I have no prejudice for a possible merge, maybe into Russian fake news laws. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AI Artathon[edit]

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

This is an advertisement for an event. There is nothing to indicate it has long-term encyclopedic value. The only sources are Saudi propaganda outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Development Fund[edit]

Cultural Development Fund (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 no RS content about this organization on which to build a NPOV-compliant and encyclopedic article. If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with Quality of Life Program 2020 (Saudi Arabia) which is what this program is part of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Bones (rapper). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seshollowaterboyz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC at all with the only references being 2 event pages. Creator has been blocked for 'persistent addition of unsourced content and a refusal to discuss said changes' - RichT|C|E-Mail 12:46, 17 March 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 11:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cnick[edit]

Cnick (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: apart perhaps from the Georgian journal article (which is in itself a rather strange and gushing text), the others are just rehashed press releases (e.g. the Interesting Engineering article copies whole bits straight from the Cnick Teslaring homepage), not actual independent, journalistic bits. Other sources one can find are of the same ilk (e.g. this interview is just a free promo piece, not an actual interview or a sign of a newspaper or magazine having true interest in the company. Fram (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for this discussion. After you started it I've added two more resources in the article (in Georgian). Both of sites (Marketer.ge and Entrepreneur.com) are the most reliable and frequently used resources about business in Georgia (you can check it, maybe you need translation). One of them (Entrepreneur.com) is the official Georgian language edition of a worldwide trustworthy magazine Entrepreneur. Both of them are secondary sources and aren't press releases or something like that. Besides, in the article, there has been added information about expansion up to 20 countries (Attested by article from Entrepreneur.com). Overall, the article fully follows the notability guideline and each of its rules, as well as all of Wikipedia standards.--Saliner (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It will be up to others to decide: I personally am always very wary of these companies which claim to be active in countries X, Y and Z, but where the only sources are from their home country, and not a single source in (e.g. in this case) Australia and New Zealand has commented on it. Fram (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see anything that doesn't look like a press release, nothing in Gnews or newspapers. Oaktree b (talk)`
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP HighKing++ 17:33, 21 March 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 radio stations in the Philippines. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYTM-FM[edit]

DYTM-FM (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)

Cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Should be a redirect, but it keeps getting recreated. Onel5969 TT me 11:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This would sorely benefit from an offline newspaper archive for the Tacloban area if it did indeed start up in the mid-1970s. It would very likely meet the GNG if this sourcing could be provided. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 17 March 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. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant M Walde[edit]

Prashant M Walde (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 enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass GNG, and they do not meet NACTOR. Indeed, the article had mistated that their prior roles were supporting, when in actuality, they appear to be bit parts. This has since been corrected. Only significant role is in a self-produced project. Onel5969 TT me 12:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashant Walde was closed as soft delete on 3 January 2022. Given that it was a soft deletion I do not think G4 would hold, but the content is very similar to the deleted page. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the links are completely verifying persons notability, links are liable and has depthed coverage so deletion won't be correct.Jsah258 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Onel5969. It looks like the significance of Walde's roles has been inflated and pretty much all significant coverage appears to be paid for. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too many refs, but screening per WP:ICTFSOURCES, I don't see any coverage other than in interviews or listicles. Hemantha (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. No evidence of meeting WP:ENT or having significant coverage to meet GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many reliable sources available which do not seem to have been deliberately taken out or paid for. Apart from this, there are many other reliable sources which the editor has not included. I think this page can be improved. Zgz.or (talk) 03:15, March 22, 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, evidence does not suggest WP:ENT is met (yet). Stifle (talk) 11:59, 24 March 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. The arguments to keep are weak and have been refuted, but after two relists, there's not much enthusiasm to outright delete either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellroy[edit]

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

WP:NCORP policy is not realized here. The coverage is not sig and independent. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
  • The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I started justifying a weak keep due to coverage I saw in Australian and UK media, although it all included quotes. Then I did a google book search and found a book that has a multiple page case study on them, which is in depth coverage in a reliable, secondary source. Marketing with Purpose, A C-Suite guide to being truly customer-centric, By Ric Navarro · 2018 CT55555 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (edited as explained below) CT55555 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hey CT55555, that's a self-published book, fails WP:RS. Also, "coverage" isn't one of the criteria, each reference to establish notability (and we need two) needs to meet both WP:ORGIND *and* WP:CORPDEPTH - can you link to the "coverage" you've located that meets the criteria? HighKing++ 15:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I saw tons of mentions that I were overwhelmingly promotional and not editorial. If it's a self published book that is independent, would you say it suggests any notability? I may change my "keep" based on your answer, genuinly opened minded about your analysis here. CT55555 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CT55555, I should have explained, self-published material is generally not accepted as a reliable source and shouldn't even be used to support facts within an article - see WP:SELFPUB. Also FYI, be aware, there are two types of references. Any reliable source can (generally) can be used to support facts and other information within an article but sources that are used to support the topic's notability command extra checks. For companies/organizations the guideline is WP:NCORP. So while a reference may be used within an article without any issues, that doesn't mean that the same reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. In this case, there are some editors saying there is "coverage" but that isn't enough for notability is that same "coverage" relies entirely on information/announcements/PR generated by the company (which it invariably is). When I say "relies entirely", a simple test is that once you take out the information that is reused/reworded from company sources and quotes/etc provided by individuals connected to the company, whats left must meet WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the references that I've looked at meet these criteria. If you have found one, link it here and we can take a look. HighKing++ 15:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your critique of my keep. I scan the AfD list frequently and jumped in here because I had heard of them and they seemed notable. A quick scan suggested they were, so I jumped in. I've not done any deep analysis, I think your critique of my keep is valid, I will strike it though, probably reverting to not opining further on this AfD. CT55555 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of the sources presented by Cabrils would be desirable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • analysis done as desired:

[41] Small product listing or review. Not meeting WP:NCORP as this is not big analysis of company.

[42] Link is not working only.

[43] Same like first. Small product listing or review.

[44] Link is not working

[45] Link is not working

[46] Link not working

[47] Redirected to home page

[48] Funding news. WP:ROUTINE


Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain how? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scant product reviews and the sources as mentioned above by Cabrils, are enough in my opinion to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so which references (and please identify the parts within those references) in particular are you saying meet the notability criteria as per WP:NCORP? Because of the three new sources provided by Cabrils above, LibStar's !vote to Keep is based on "coverage" (which isn't a criteria for notability) and your !vote is equally vague. The Anthill reference is based entirely on an interview with the founder and has no "Independent Content" as per the definition in WP:ORGIND and fails the criteria for notability. This from WWD is entirely based on an interview with Carter Weiss, a partner at their new backers Silas Capital, has no "Independent Content" and also fails ORGIND. Finally, this from AFR is a puff-profile based entirely on information provided by a co-founder Lina Calabria and other information provided by the company, also fails ORGIND. I'm happy to change my mind is you can identify the parts of those articles which you claim meets NCORP. HighKing++ 13:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your interpretation of the definition of WP:ORGIND is overly narrow. A careful reading of the definition does not support your position. By your criteria any article that "only" interviews its subject would fail "Independent Content", which is absurd. A journalist (in a reliable publication) most certainly can write appropriate, "independent" articles on a single subject-- they are necessarily forming an opinion about the subject and phrasing the content of the article around quotes from the interviewee. Your subjective interpretation discounts all 3 articles that were recently added, even describing one as a "puff-profile". As a matter of common sense, those articles are in reliable publications and are substantive: they are clearly written because the company has become sufficiently notable in the eye of the author to justify a substantial article. You are entitled of course to your opinion but it is mischievous to blankly assert that the article fails as a matter of fact, when it is your subjective view. Raise it as your opinion by all means, but please be mindful of the distinction. Having said that, I agree that there isn't the coverage to make Bellroy a slam dunk pass, but there is nonetheless, in my view, sufficient to pass: hence my vote of a weak keep. Cabrils (talk) 22:25, 23 March 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. Since a significant number of comments are "weak", my conclusion is the community just isn't bothered whether we have an article or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myndy Crist[edit]

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

Not seeing the significant credits required for WP:NACTOR other than the short-lived Breaking News, and none of the references are specifically about her, so WP:BIO isn't satisfied either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • My long-lost child! At last, I've found you! Though you should really call me Dad. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the requirement of multiple significant roles in notable productions is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, she has appeared in lots of notable tv shows and some movies, but I am not satisfied with the sourcing so I vote delete. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I maintain my previous position. I think the WP:NACTOR argument is stronger than WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I am updating my vote to Keep on the basis of the new source provided. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should add that, while I am in no way suggesting this nomination was done in bad faith, it does appear to undermine the result of the first nomination, whereby the article remained, through lack of consensus. To my mind, it would make more sense to appeal the original decision, rather than re-nominate it in the hope that those voting two years on will take a harsher view. Such a practice renders the initial nomination and outcome redundant, and allows for nominations to be made multiple times over. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is common practice to start a new discussion when so much time has passed. Many factors change in two years, making an appeal not necessarily relevant or applicable. Star Mississippi 02:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've added a source about Breaking News which directly details in a minor way. The working actor is often hard to document, since sources necessarily tend to focus on performance instead of personality (lots of that kind of character coverage material available). I reject NACTOR arguments, because the subject doesn't meet either criteria, IMHO. Based on my recent experience with Stephen Hogan, I'm sympathetic to keeping pages of working actors who are marginally sourced, but have a long IMDB credit list. BusterD (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if BusterD's source has been evaluated. Allow time to do so, and possibly form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have now updated my vote (please see above). Dflaw4 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep, based on a 34-year career including several multi-episode appearances in fairly major productions. BD2412 T 02:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long career with no real breakout roles = journeyperson. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 17 March 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 11:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government College, Sirohi[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The words in its name are very generic, making it hard to search, but the best refs were primary sources. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No indication that non primary significant coverage exists in my WP:BEFORE. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since from what I can tell there's zero to indicate that this is notable. Otherwise, if someone can come up with WP:THREE in-depth, secondary references I will reconsider my "vote." I couldn't find any myself though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Belev[edit]

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

This article has existed for over 9 years with a notice of no sources. Looking at the sources in the Bulgarian article, one is a radio program about past Bulgarian opera singers. Not knowing Bulgarian I have no way to know how much Belev is mentioned there, so it may or may not be significant coverage from a reliable source, but 1 such is not enough for an article. The other is a Youtube link, which is not something that adds towards notability. So we lack sourcing that rises to the level of GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominee. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 19:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a few sources. Looking at the number of google hits, someone with some knowledge on books about opera singers can probably find more offline sources. Arved (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arved. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the added sources. We shouldn't expect too many sources for a singer in a less prominent country at his time. He seems to have been a great tenor, - why delete? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find one further source in an English article in a Croatian music journal, [50]. Might be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added that one, and expanded with the ref from the Sofia Opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arved. Jingiby (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above. Aramehetemadi (talk) 10:03, 23 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Games[edit]

Dream Games (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:NCORP. A helpdesk post states that this is a corporate creation, so is UPE. WP:ADMASQ. The article itself is just about a load of fundraising, not about the corporation. Its only product does not have an article. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the creator of the page is Sorry20, and looking through their edits, I rather doubt that they are an undisclosed paid editor. (Unlike the HD poster, who is.) No strong opinion on the notability, but I have seen worse sources survive an AfD. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the sources currently in the article make this company pass WP:NCORP—specifically WP:ORGIND, as the sources simply re-publish info published by the company. I haven't done a search yet on my own though. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 09:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found similar sources in my own search that just announce the value of the company, some investments and repeat the CEO ([51], [52], [53], [54]) This one talks about who owns the company and lists some of its games, majority of which are copied from the Google Play descriptions of the games. Albeit reliable, as I said above these sources fail WP:ORGIND and therefore cannot be used to determine notability. Without any other sources, this company fails WP:NCORP. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is a common pattern to regurgitated press releases: announcement of stuff, quote from CEO or suchlike, and short company blurb at the end. 4 out of the 5 sources in the article at the time of nomination closely follow that pattern, 2 of them explicitly attributing "a statement". Paid editing or not, if one's only sources are press releases, promotional articles are what one is going to get. Whether other sources exist is hard to know. These aren't exactly narrow search keywords. And all of the news articles that I could find, that I could read, turned out to be more regurgitated press releases. How do we know any of this stuff is true? We have only the words of the CEO and the venture capitalists in press releases. Uncle G (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article says little about the company's product. Most of it is about its funding and growth rate. I've seen several such articles created on Wikipedia by an employee in the last few years. I assume that these are what matter to the company's managers (though they're unlikely to be of interest to general readers) because they're hoping to sell the company to Softbank or another such investor that is guided largely by growth rate rather than profitability. Maproom (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost WP SPAM. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Due to the phrasing of this article, the authors history, and other aspects of this article. I have reason to believe that this article falls under WP:G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I recieved direct feedback from an Administrator. Decision change to normal Delete PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PerryPerryD You are entitled to offer your G11 opinion. I think the overall outcome of the AfD will provide a fuller consensus than solely your opinion plus that of any putative deleting admin. Feel totally free to express your opinion in the way thaty seems most appropriate to you. We need your opinion, ideally uninfluenced by others. However thank you for your willingness to listen to other opinions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the number of people playing the game, and the fact that the company is the fastest growing unicorn in Turkey, make this a keep. The sources are reliable, and meet WP:NCORP. However, to make this even more palatable for everyone, it should be about the company and the game. Later on, the game content could be a fork. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both the number of people playing and being the fastest growing unicorn of a nation isn't listed as a criteria for notability. I've told above why the sources in the article (+5 not in the article) don't meet NCORP, and you haven't even bothered to explain how they do. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 09:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. @Timtempleton please clarify how it follows WP:NCORP PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:NCORP's primary criteria section, it says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I count multiple reliable secondary sources, all independent, including CNBC, Bloomberg and multiple TechCrunch sources. Even Daily Sabeh meets the criteria. The metrics are icing on the cake, making it an obvious keep for those not well versed in sometimes misunderstood policies. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm moment. The primary criteria section follows up with subsequent sub-sections detailing each mentioned criteria, where you can find that "independent of the subject" also requires the content of the source to be unaffiliated: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". So saying "oh it's the damn CNBC, they are not affiliated with the subject" isn't enough. None of the sources are independent by this definition. ~StyyxTalk? 20:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tim and the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, coverage is predominantly regurgitating press releases. Notability not met (yet). Stifle (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Pankin[edit]

Oleg Pankin (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 person doesn't pass WP:GNG. Also, not enough relialbe independent sources are provided. Possible Advert or COI Driodr (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Bhootham[edit]

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

My Dear Bhootam

Non-notable web series. This article contains nothing that addresses general notability or web notability. The references do not provide significant coverage:

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 cinema.vikatan.com Description of characters Yes No Yes No
2 Timesofindia.com Ad poster for a related movie No No No No

Moved from article space to draft space once, then created in article space again. The page in article space should be deleted and the draft left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. This draft can be modified at Draft:My Dear Bhootham until it meets compliance with Wikipedia policy. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EasyEquities[edit]

EasyEquities (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)

Cryptocurrency related company that fails GNG Pridemanty (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawrence (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR, as the only coverage of him is passing mentions and he has only directed non-notable films. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:32, 17 March 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 compositions by Percy Grainger. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Train Music[edit]

Train Music (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 piece by Grainger that was never published, performed, or completed. There are hardly any sources I can find either. A passing mention on Grainger's page is all that's needed. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Grae[edit]

Rachel Grae (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)

Sources do not demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The impetus for the apparent "early" entry of this article is due to her prominent upcoming role on "Becoming a Popstar" - the newest MTV show, sponsored by Tiktok and Pepsi. Her profile stands to raise significantly in the coming days, if the millions of streams and followers on social media were not enough to warrant the article yet. The TV show's first episode airs on March 24, 2022, thus the upload of this article one week beforehand. Cpeter30 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, indeed, you believe it to be a case of WP:TOOSOON as well. It may be best for you to write a draft on the subject instead, because, as it stands today, the topic does not seem to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion in for Wikipedia. – Pbrks (t • c) 17:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The show is airing today, so certainly not too soon: https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/becoming-a-popstar-exclusive-clip-48762110
She is being featured across many notable outlets, and Oaktree is making inaccurate claims: the artist is in the millions of streams on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0ekCwZGQUkAISV1h48jlHn
While I agree that having millions of streams is not worthy of her own article, the TV show press certainly is. Several sources have already been cited to that end. Thank you. Cpeter30 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree it’s too soon to consider. This person does not meet WP:BLP standards. She has not achieved the necessary third party validation or WP:NOTEWORTHY achievements. She may someday, but has not done it yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Agreed, if her "profile stands to be raised significantly", she's not yet notable. May want to move this to draft space, with the caveat that she might not be notable even after the show airs. She'd need a substantial amount of coverage in reliable sources before we'd consider it. I've written articles for reality tv stars before, Shannon Singh for example, and unless they really make a splash, it's hard to find enough to justify an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tik Tok stardom has yet to translate into RS recognition. Probably TOO SOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More and more press is coming out every day to support Rachel's page here, as she will be at the forefront of a new show on MTV starting in a few hours. Here is another source from a major outlet: https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/becoming-a-popstar-exclusive-clip-48762110 Cpeter30 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, popsugar.com is generally considered to be an unreliable source. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I note that several references have been provided and these have been adequately debated by the AFD participants, who believe that they establish notability. I recognize not everyone shares that view, but there is a rough consensus to keep, and that is the standard. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bareezé[edit]

Bareezé (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 person who is founder of this company is notable maybe. But company is not having links that are good enough for WP:NCORP. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the organization is very notable in Pakistan and its philanthropic activities. A detailed piece of article on Bareeze in Express Tribune here [55]. 39.45.166.55 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for that reference. It fails WP:ORGIND criteria as it an interview with Seema Aziz, therefore a PRIMARY source with no "Independent Content". HighKing++ 12:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclosure: this page caught my attention because I was notified about it by an IP on my talk. Normally, I would've avoided it if the subject was non-notable. However, I will take the liberty to express myself and leave it to the closer to decide the merits. The subject is genuinely notable as a Pakistani clothing brand, with multinational outlets. There are several sources which list it as one of the "major" clothing brands and manufacturers in Pakistan, for example Profit by Pakistan Today, Express Tribune, Dawn, and others [56] [57]. Purely based on this, the subject ought to be kept. Mar4d (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for finding more references. Just FYI, this is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. (This is usually the criteria where most references fail). References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. With that in mind, lets look at the references you found:
  • This from Pakistan Today is a story about corporate lobbying and the topic company has a mere mention-in-passing as follows: "We have roughly 250 members, and all of the major manufacturers like Bareeze, Nishat, and Sapphire are members of this association..." The article therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This from The Express Tribune is a puff profile for the Alkhuddam Group of Companies with no attributed journalist. The same quote turns up at another page which attributed the article to the Times of India although this page is no longer available. A slightly longer version of the article with subtle differences and an earlier date also turns up here attributed to Sheikh Qayoom as the journalist. Notwithstanding all of that, the topic company gets a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Images is also a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the company
  • This in the Express Tribune is a puff profile with no attributed journalist and based entirely on a press release (says it at the start of the 2nd paragraph) and therefore fails ORGIND
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, just mere-mentions or based on company PR. HighKing++ 12:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to go by what I actually see at the subject article. I saw at least TWO in-depth articles by The Express Tribune newspaper that say 'Bareeze' right in the article titles provided above by Mar4d and then go on to discuss this popular Pakistani clothing brand with multinational outlets. In addition, the article is supported by references by Forbes, The Spectator (UK magazine) and Dawn (newspaper). Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article 'Bareeze' is about ONLY a clothing brand of a corporation. It's a short (stub) article and is NOT about a corporation. So WP:CORPDEPTH does not apply here. In my view, the notability of the clothing brand has already been shown. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how come brand is not a part of the corporation? Won’t company use the brand to sell their products? Even WP:GNG is not met here. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now Bareeez clothing brand's parent corporation Sefam (Pvt.) Limited does not have a Wikipedia article. There is no point in talking about something that does not exist...would be pure speculation. I suggest we deal with it when that article is created on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: counting that last comment as a delete vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Poor sources, only mentioning the brand in passing, nothing notable found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Totally untrue statement about sources above. One needs to take a look and see that there are plenty of very reliable independent newspaper sources and international publications sources as well – not only given above by User:Mar4d but also at the article itself. Ngrewal1 (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read our guidelines WP:NCORP - you might be surprised to find that mentions in "very reliable independent newspaper sources and international publications sources" is not one of the criteria - in fact, that's often assumed to be true before each individual reference is examined and each reference must meet NCORP including ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. For example, please post a link to one single reference which was provided above by Mar4d or within the article and identify within that article the paragraph which you believe contains in-depth information, clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company, about the topic company. HighKing++ 13:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me the subject article is about a brand of clothing not a company. Saw much news coverage from many reliable sources. MelvinHans (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 17:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steam locomotive production[edit]

Steam locomotive production (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)

Oh boy, an article with 4 cleanup templates. I saw this linked from Steam locomotive and wow, this is a bad article. But beyond that, I don't see how this topic meets notability. This article appears to be one editor's pet project from 2006. It seems like a pointless fork from Steam locomotive to me, and should be deleted or redirected. There's nothing encyclopedic here, this is just statistics without any real relevance or encyclopedic context. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is just tables of manufacturing data, hardly useful - and outdated. You're better off looking for the data in an actual database instead. In my opinion, wiping the slate clean and making an article on how steam locomotives are produced would be a better use of the space. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 02:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that your suggestion would be a worthwhile article. Once TNT is applied here, I'd have no objection to someone starting such an article at this title or a similar one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If both of the tables were removed, there would be no encyclopedic content left. Even assuming that someone were to write locomotive-production tables for the rest of the world, that would violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I agree with Kirbanzo that an article about the specifics of manufacturing steam locomotives would be more appropriate. Epicgenius (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could maybe see a place for the tables (or more likely summarised version) as part of an encyclopaedic article about the history of locomotive production in the United States, but that is not this article. I agree Kirbanzo about what this title should be used for - indeed that's what I expected to find when seeing this title in the article alerts list. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article at a point where it would need to be completely swept clean, as per Kirbanzo. XtraJovial (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Peirce[edit]

Daniel Peirce (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)

Nō indication of notability. Article is basically promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Oakland Child-Adolescent and Family Center[edit]

New Oakland Child-Adolescent and Family Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shivalik Model Senior Secondary School[edit]

Shivalik Model Senior Secondary 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)

No sources, minimal information, and nothing to indicate notability. It fails WP:NSCHOOL as a result. I did a WP:BEFORE check, got nothing of note from Google, the NYT, etc. WP Library gave 1 result that was just some security camera getting fixed in 2016, hardly significant.Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment - Found that the article exists in Egyptian Arabic, of all things. However, there's nothing of use there, either. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 02:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My search found a fair number of sources in Punjabi (e.g. [58]), but none of them seem to discuss the school in enough depth to qualify as significant coverage under the GNG/WP:NSCHOOL. I'm glad to reconsider if there's something I'm missing due to the language barrier. I couldn't find an appropriate redirect target, so deletion is appropriate. (By the way, the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia contains a vast number of articles that seem to have been mass-produced from Wikidata using some automated tool, so the fact that they have one about this school doesn't really tell us anything.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VSoft Technologies[edit]

VSoft Technologies (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 links provided in the article. Bare bones and nothing to save. Not realising WP:NCORP. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Data[edit]

Alpha Data (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)

UAE organisation that doesn’t realise the WP:NCORP policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InsideTrack[edit]

InsideTrack (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 marketing article or page about an company that is not notable. It does not have sig coverage in reliable and independent sources. Not realising WP:NCORP. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 01:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AYMTM[edit]

AYMTM (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 realising WP:NCORP policy of Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:38, 17 March 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. With the listing open for over 3 weeks I do not see a purpose in relisting yet again; I would encourage interested editors to resolve this by way of normal editorial actions such as merging. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow DoS Attack[edit]

Slow DoS Attack (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 topic on its own is insignificant. While slow denial-of-attack service did happen, the topic should be merged with DDoS instead of their own standalone article. The article also didn't cite enough sources, only citing one paper, that is likely written by the user creating the article, as shown by the COI template on the user creating the article. SunDawntalk 15:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SunDawntalk 15:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SunDawntalk 15:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SunDawntalk 15:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there have been many papers on this, and denial-of-service attack is an utter shit-show of an article. They don't use Cambiaso's name for this, and both this article and the Enrico Cambiaso article are examples of why it is pretty much never a good idea to come to Wikipedia to write about onesself. (vide User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you)

    The basic introduction to such a topic should not focus upon Cambiaso, or start with who-coined-a-name. It's a type of DoS attack, which can be found discussed in the literature, which has had about a decade to study detection and mitigation strategies and document tools, under names such as a "slow rate (D)DoS attack" or "slow request/slow response attacks" or "slow-running (D)DoS attack". I'll give you three uses of these names, just for starters.

    In short, Enrico Cambiaso writing about xyrself is exactly the wrong way to write a stub on this.

    Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lukaseder, Thomas; Maile, Lisa; Erb, Benjamin; Kargl, Franke (2018). "SDN-assisted network-based mitigation of slow DDoS attacks". In Beyah, Raheem; Chang, Bing; Li, Yingjiu; Zhu, Sencun (eds.). Security and Privacy in Communication Networks: 14th International Conference, SecureComm 2018, Singapore, Singapore, August 8-10, 2018, Proceedings, Part II. Springer. arXiv:1804.06750. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01704-0_6. ISBN 9783030017040. Slow-running attacks against network applications are often not easy to detect […]
    • Nagaraja, G.; Simpson, Serin V.; Sasikala, T. (2022). "An application-oriented study of security threats and countermeasures in edge computing-assisted Internet of Things". In Raj, Pethuru; Nagarajan, G.; Minu, R.I. (eds.). Applied Edge AI: Concepts, Platforms, and Industry Use Cases. CRC Press. p. 134. ISBN 9781000552690. […] DDoS attacks can be classified into flooding-based attacks and slow request/response attacks […]
    • Sahoo, Kshira Sagar; Behera, Ranjan Kumar; Sahoo, Bibhudatta; Tiwary, Mayank (2018). "Distributed denial-of-service threats and defence mechanisms in software-defined networks: a layer-wise review". In Tavares, João Manuel R.S.; Mishra, Brojo Kishore; Kumar, Raghvendra; Zaman, Noor; Khari, Manju (eds.). Handbook of e-Business Security. CRC Press. ISBN 9780429887079. […] a slow-reading attack is a type of slow request/response DDoS attack […]
  • Draftiify (or merge: if their is a volunteer) : The immediate point I'd note is how quick people seemed to be to nominate for deletion and notability judgements while failing to provide help links totally against the spirit of WP:DONTBITETHENEWBIES. Should have been draftified with Enrico.cambiaso pointed to appropriate help, e.g. WP:TEAHOUSE. I'd also note the nom. is urging for Merge rather than deletion and AfD is not really the place to go to propose a merge. 11:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Faxton[edit]

Alex Faxton (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)

Contested PROD (see talk page). Aside from the piece in the Lancs, I'm not seeing SIGCOV in any other media sources. Fails NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 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 Canada convoy protest#Groups. Consensus is that there isn't enough substance for a standalone article. Whether to merge any content is up to editors. Sandstein 20:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BJ Dichter[edit]

BJ Dichter (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)

Declined PROD, rationale was "per WP:BLP1E: only notable by Wikipedia standards for participation in the Freedom Convoy; what little relevant material there is can be included in that article. Being a podcaster, promoting cryptocurrency, just having religious views, and speaking at right-wing events are all things which do not establish notability." Adding here that there is some intermittent coverage prior to the Freedom Convoy of Dichter's Conservative Party and People's Party activities, but aspiring politicians who have never been elected rarely meet the WP:GNG and I don't see any reason to believe Dichter is an exception. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment - I did look into sources written prior to the convoy protests and saw coverage of Dichter's failed run in Toronto-Danforth and speaking at a PPC convention, but the Conservatives have no chance of winning Toronto-Danforth (the closest they came was in Mulroney's 1984 largest-majority-in-history when they ran a very well known local media personality who was still second by more than 15% of the vote, and they've done no better than third place and 15% overall since 1993) and the PPC has little chance of winning anywhere, and I don't think the routine coverage of those two events is enough to demonstrate notability. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to WP:NOTROUTINE I don't agree with the characterization of him running for election (in unusual circumstances where the initial candidate dropped out) is routine. I quote "Routine coverages such as weddings, funerals, sports scores, and other "and finally..." stories can be used to add to a notable article some interesting and details about a subject." This, to me, is clearly, not routine with regards to him running for election. His words about "political Islam" at the PPC conference were anything but routine, I think quite an incredible thing to say, and attracted widespread coverage in major Canadian news. I also think the (unquestionably accurate) analysis of his chances of winning a seat are not a factor in establishing notability. CT55555 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The trouble is that every candidate in every election always gets some coverage of their campaign during the election, precisely because the media have an obligation to cover all candidates in any elections taking place in their coverage areas — so if campaign coverage were all it took to give a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it. So the test that an unelected political candidate has to pass is not "does campaign coverage exist", it's "does the campaign coverage establish a compelling reason why the person's candidacy should be seen as much more important than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the will people still care about this ten years from now test for enduring significance". Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that if people care about him in 10 years it will be he role at the PPC conference, his establishment of the LGBTQI+ org, his social media and influence and his leadership of the convoy, his islamophobia, more than his 2014 and 2015 political aspirations. I do think he is and will be notable in 2032, I think Ottawa events will be in the history books for some generations and I don't think the podcast guy currently sitting on $10m of donations will be disappearing from the limelight or public interest. CT55555 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I created this article) I recognize the good faith nature of the AfD, althought I disagree. I did invite discussion on the talk page to try to avoid AfD. I did consider carefully WP:BLP1E before starting this and I believe it does not apply. I also think that is clearer now than it was a few minutes ago, as I just added more content and sources, now that I realized this is being questioned. There is plenty secondary, reliable, independent sources that talk about his work to found a LGBTQ conservative group, him running for election in 2015, his controversial speech at a political event in 2019. The most in depth on is 1. The others are the most popular news sources in Canada. I hope that might sway you Ivanvector and thank you for your efforts to maintain standards, even if we disagree on this point (at this moment, as always, trying to keep an open mind, and reach consensus). CT55555 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done a lot of work on this article since it was PRODed, (now over double the length) with emphasis on 2014 to 2019 reporting, to address the specific concerns raised. That include his 2014 political run (in addition to his 2015 one) CT55555 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the trucker convoy article, could be a brief section in the article, I don't think he's done much to get his own article. Take out the trucker protests, it's almost hopless trying to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I recognize there is a lot of passing mentions, but it's not difficult to establish notability outside the protests, which the majority of this article is about. Here's some examples in case this sways your perspective:
    1. http://www.truenorthtimes.ca/2015/09/29/conservative-candidate-benjamin-dichter-shared-crusade-islamisation-world-video/
    2. https://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/national/maxime-bernier-tells-party-faithful-he-will-make-it-into-the-leaders-debates/article_baa66b62-9de1-5cec-b260-944d99efe143.html
    3. https://www.toronto.com/news-story/5925590-toronto-danforth-conservatives-name-benjamin-dichter-as-new-candidate/ CT55555 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "True North Times" isn't a reliable or notability-assisting source at all; the Chronicle-Journal just glances off Dichter's existence in an article about somebody else; and fails to be about Benjamin Dichter in any notability-assisting way; and the Toronto.com hit is exactly the sort of routine "party selects candidate" blurb that every candidate for every party in every election always automatically gets in their district's local media, and thus doesn't help to build the notability of an unsuccessful candidacy since it doesn't establish that his candidacy was more special than other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Requesting help from anyone who knows how to get this discussion listed at WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People, WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Health_and_fitness, WikiProject Deletion sorting/COVID-19 I see User:CAPTAIN_RAJU you often do this sort of thing, in case you are willing to help, sorry, I do not understand the process for this, but these seems like relevant noticeboards. CT55555 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Sexuality and gender, Islam, COVID-19, and South America. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm surprised given the prominent coverage about them. It's not B1D given the well-documented political history - and the activism. At best it's a redirect to the Ottawa occupation. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: giving it some more time now that it has been listed in the requested delsorts
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree that WP:BLP1E applies here. BLP1E is only triggered if "each of three conditions is met". The first states that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". Note the word "only": as explained at WP:NOTBLP1E, this does not mean "mostly in the context of a single event", nor does it mean "would not have been independently notable but for a single event". CT55555 has shown that Dichter received some coverage in reliable sources prior to 2022, and that's enough to render BLP1E inapplicable. I also find it very hard to believe that Dichter "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual": seeking public office and speaking at party conventions aren't really hallmarks of low-profile individuals. Since this article isn't precluded by BLP1E, we're left with the GNG, which I think Dichter fairly clearly passes given the coverage of his role in the Ottawa events plus the pre-2022 sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still not seeing anything notable about him, just appearing often in media as a mouthpiece for whatever political view he's spouting at that time. Sources are thin. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ONEEVENT applies. Optionally redirect to a relevant article on the Ottawa convoy. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any noteworthy content to a relevant article about the convoy: not seeing substantial coverage outside the ONEEVENT. Springnuts (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Looked at the first 8 references and couldn't identify any that were soley in-depth, or secondary and that were exclusively about Dichter. I would prefer delete if possible as I don't think he is is notable. When you see the WP:BLP1E mention, you always see the same to be three conditions shold met, but WP:BLP1E is really complex, so it is always general case applies. The guy is not notable. scope_creepTalk 13:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would be great if the people who say that BLP1E applies could address the clear explanation of why it does not provided by Extraordinary Writ CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well for one thing there is argument based on WP:NOTBLP1E, which is an essay, not our policy. Springnuts (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an essay, hosted on Wikipedia, that carefully and logically lays out how many people get BLP1E wrong. Essays, as per WP:ESSAY exist to help guide people, and indeed are not formal policy. So yes, it's optional, but I would still invite anyone to say so if they think anything in the essay is incorrect, or if its application to this situation is incorrect. CT55555 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - clearly there is disagreement: that’s why we have this process. Springnuts (talk) 20:40, 27 March 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. Sandstein 07:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fright-Rags[edit]

Fright-Rags (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)

Marketing material posted. The links given don’t follow the WP:NCORP policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Fiumanò[edit]

Filippo Fiumanò (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)

RIP WP:NFOOTY. This article is no longer notable as he fails WP:GNG Dr Salvus 17:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of some coverage, so no harm extending to allow a more thorough search, but insufficient at this stage to satisfy GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 00:07, 17 March 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. MBisanz talk 01:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Didion[edit]

Mathieu Didion (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 scrapes by WP:NFOOTY with eight WP:FPL appearances, but WP:GNG is comprehensively failed. Consensus is to delete in this scenario. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, that change has been reverted, though NFOOTY is likely to change substantially and soon. Not a vote on this, just a note. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, playing 8 games is not scrapes by WP:NFOOTY. Secondly, recent policy change in RfC (which is still in process of implementation) is irrelevant as it was stated in the sub-proposal that articles would not be grandfathered (and this article was created in 2009). Thirdly, some sources: an article about him,--Ortizesp (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC) mentioned here. --SuperJew (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is an interview, and the second one has no coverage about the subject, only a quote from him (in what seems like a simple match announcement, from the club itself, so neither significant nor independent) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interviews are valid references, what are you on about. It's by a neutral third party. He clearly passes GNG.
      • Interviews are valid references, but not for establishing notability, as they are not independent from the subject (since the information about the subject mostly comes from his own mouth...). This is very clearly explained at WP:PSTS and also at WP:SIGCOV, which requires sources independent of the subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation, interviews aren't denigrated in either WP:PSTS or WP:SIGCOV. The website providing the interview is third party and independent. That is all that is required.
          • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. An interview, which by its very nature is something that is produced in direct collaboration with the subject, is clearly not independent of it, whether it is published in the New York Times or in the Littletown Gazette. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • An off-topic comment on interviews: We in the Wikipedia community often get this rather back-to-front. If a major national newspaper chooses, independently, to interview someone, then it means that person is notable (because someone independent of the subject considers them of interest to the public). But because it's an interview, the subject might tell untruths about themselves, so it's not factually reliable. This is the opposite way round to how notability/reliability of interviews tend to be treated in WP, as in this case. This results from the wording of WP:GNG, which doesn't distinguish between notability and reliability, instead writing "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". This wording was probably deliberate, as it combines the two ideas in one and skips straight to the important decision. Unfortunately, people tend to try to separate them out again, which leads to misunderstandings. To my mind, it's an AND relationship: interviews indicate that the subject is notable, but if there is no reliable information then no matter how notable the subject, no article can be written; in effect, a subject could be extremely notable but nevertheless not suitable for a stand-alone article. Maybe one day WP:GNG will be re-written to make this clear. Elemimele (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              I like your point and I would encourage you to push this into a wider conversation, outside the AfD, because this is logical and important. CT55555 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, and whether it passed a former version of NSPORTS by the thinnest of margins (one which has been explicitly repealed, although still pending implementation) is irrelevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ortizesp: If it passes GNG, you must provide sources which show this. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and the sources currently in the article or presented here are clearly not enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, the sources listed are clearly enough in my opinion. And the threshold is only one reference as per the latest iteration of rules.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now until the dust settles on the sports notability wars. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman and Random Canadian. GNG cannot be met with an interview and a passing mention. Pilaz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman and Random Canadian and Pilaz - lack of RS; fails GNG. Springnuts (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consensus is clear on this. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "IP range details · 130.126.0.0/16 · AS38 · University of Illinois".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_17&oldid=1079207021"