Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

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 10:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Isaac (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be surprised if someone with 53 international appearances failed to pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find anything in local media beyond passing mentions but I tend to agree with you. I did find this interview for what it's worth. For those looking for more sources, he appears to sometimes be referred to as George Yellowman Isaac. He was also manager of Cayon Rockets.
    I bet @Das osmnezz can find a thing or two. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per BeanieFan11 and the source above. He was clearly significant figure in St Kitts and Nevis football having been third highest appearance maker and score ever and one of few St Kitts players to ever play abroad, in Asia. In addition, he definielty has offline sources having had a 15+ pro career including stints in Trinidad and Tobago and Hong Kong top flights. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG as all I could find is passing mentions. The concacaf.com article isn't independent of Isaac and therefore doesn't count. Dougal18 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has 53(!) appearances on the senior national team, which is the third most in St. Kitts and Nevis team history. This is a case where WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE need to be used. Frank Anchor 14:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor football team with minimal coverage... GiantSnowman 15:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that minor - only 5 years ago they were ranked 73rd in the world - higher then than a team from the same federation in this year's World Cup. Nfitz (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately. I thought there'd be something out there but I can't find it. Nothing in St Kitts newspaper archives, nothing about his time at W Connection or Happy Valley. Despite what I said above, I need a policy-based argument for keep. If anything substantial is found, I'll consider changing my vote. As it is, there's nothing policy-based here to indicate we should keep, sorry. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am with Dougal, MOTG, and GS here; the fact that someone played #NUMBER of games for #TEAM is irrelevant if there is no coverage to demonstrate they actually received substantial attention for such an accomplishment. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:ATHLETE Mr.weedle (talk) 02:58, 24 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Trotskyism[edit]

Neo-Trotskyism (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 had no citations since 2009 and amounts to little more than a stub. Upon research, I have only found two articles mentioning the term. One is from the Indian communist journal Revolutionary Democracy, which doesn't actually use the term "neo-Trotskyism" in the text, but instead appears to be a broad "anti-revisionist" treatise aimed at criticising many non-Stalinist tendencies.[1] The other is a more thoroughly-researched article from the Foreign Policy Journal on how "neo-Trotskyists" lay the groundwork for neoconservatism, but it never uses the term "Neo-Trotskyism" either.[2]

I can only conclude that "neo-Trotskyism" is a non-existent tendency and that "Neo-Trotskyist" is little more than a label. Given the lack of clear notability for this article, I suggest it be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Foreign Policy Journal may or may not be well-researched, but it does not appear to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. It seems that it was totally under the control of one person in the time that it was published. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then, so out of the only two sources I could find on the subject, neither are reliable. This article definitely needs to be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORK, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:BLP. It seems to be fairly clearly a POV fork of Trotskyism. There are no sources, and few are available. By naming names to supposedly ascribe to a controversial idea, it violates BLP. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 23 September 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 10:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Mølsgaard[edit]

Adolph Mølsgaard (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. Google search brings no results apart from the usual database entries. BilletsMauves€500 16:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article alone says he only played a single game, so with that being said, can't possibly be notable. Mr.weedle (talk) 03:00, 24 September 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. Star Mississippi 00:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Canada Pathways Fellowship[edit]

Zenith Canada Pathways Fellowship (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 SIGCOV sources are in the article, and I was unable to find any elsewhere. There are some trivial mentions (e.g.,[3] [4]). That last one, in particular, states that this organization exists and that someone is one of their fellows. HouseBlastertalk 15:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A source from SpaceQ, a Canadian media organization for global space news/analysis, was added, as well as a reference to a university article discussing the fellowship and the election of two undergraduates.
Although SIGCOV sources on the Zenith Canada Pathways Fellowship are currently limited, its notability within Canada is roughly proportional to that of American aerospace fellowships such as the Brooke Owens Fellowship, which have had years to accrue press coverage. Articles about major aerospace fellowships have been quite scant until recently; this article exists for completeness. RabidTuberculosis (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:SOAP. This program was just created last year, and while worthy, so are many other scholarship programs. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 23 September 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. Sandstein 09:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bertazzoni[edit]

Bertazzoni (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)

Seems to be not notable as fails to meet WP:NCORP. Most of the references are backed by 1 book source which looks not independent enough. More reliable sources are needed. Online search won't help much. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets GNG. I fail to see how this book by an Italian journalist and a New York-based publisher is not independent. In any case, there are several sources cited that show notability. Two of the best examples: [5][6] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a commercial company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply as well as GNG. It is very clear that the book is a corporate collaboration and says as such on the 6th page, written by Paulo Bertazzoni. The foreword from the author also confirms it as such. The book cannot therefore be considered "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. The article in Review Journal has no attributed journalist (red flag) but in any case has no in-depth information about the *company* (exclusing the various quotes, etc) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the Bloomburg piece also relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company and also fails WP:ORGIND as there is no "Independent Content". HighKing++ 12:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without being too feisty, this doesn't seem like a particularly close call. In addition to the refs cited already, I found several other refs that I think would support a finding of notability. See e.g., [7] [8]. And this isn't even drawing on Italian sources, which presumably have further coverage as well.DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DocFreeman24 FYI, the Forbes link is a perrenial source according to the Wikipedia. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, see WP:FORBES. Also the Trusted Reviews article is a printed interview from the CEO of their UK operation, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Based on my inability to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The references listed, including ones from this AfD, fail NCORP. But it is a weak Delete !vote since the company is so old and there is the possibility that sources exist which are not online. Also, someone mentioned possible Italian sources and although I have not managed to locate any, someone may find some. HighKing++ 12:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are some reliable sources in English as well as Italian.Atighot (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm concerned about the independence of the book that the article relies heavily on as a source. However, from what I could find, I think there is just enough independent and secondary coverage out there to support WP:NCORP. Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MasqueDesRonces (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Typist Typing Tutor[edit]

Touch Typist Typing Tutor (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 seems to be a genuinely long-running piece of software, but sadly there is no extant coverage in reliable sources (apart from the cited ad for the Amiga version) according to GNews, GBooks and a cursory general Google search, and the publisher (from which all but one of the sources originate) is similarly obscure. I don't see a single criterion in WP:NSOFT it could possibly fulfill unless some wealth of documentary evidence from its early existence has somehow escaped me. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(See my comment below) - Full disclosure, after reading the article and seeing how long ago this software was made I went into this thinking I could swoop in with sources and WP:HEY this thing with sources. But I've checked Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Newspapers.com (broadly and even narrowing it to specifically British papers), archive.org, and The Wikipedia Library resource. Through all of that I have come up with exactly 0 sources, not even a trivial mention to be found. Given its age it's possible there are archived old references tucked away in some resource that I just don't have access to or haven't considered, but given the complete and absolutely lack of references elsewhere I think it's unlikely. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, as sources just aren't there and all of the references currently in the article are non-independent or otherwise unreliable (specifically the expired eBay listing, which at best would just verify the software exists, not that it's notable in any way). If sources can be found please ping me and I will be happy to reassess my position on this article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and set precedent. This is quite likely the most depressing AfD I have ever come across on Wikipedia. This time it's not a lack of effort – the participants so far have done more than due diligence – but something far worse: entire reliable sources (not mere articles!) just vanishing into thin air with the passing of time. The software's website helpfully (proactively?) compiles a list of review quotes, but doesn't have the actual citations to back them up, perhaps because even the software author doesn't have that information. The modern magic of exact phrase search allows rescuing even the most obscure media... except what if the good people contributing to these archives didn't have these specific issues? (Note: I suspect these links are not copyright-compliant, so it would probably not be appropriate to put them in the article, but we don't have to because they are printed sources. For discussion here, I can hardly imagine links to obsolete media that may not exist anywhere soon not being fair use.) Pinging User:Aoidh (per request) and User:MasqueDesRonces... Modernponderer (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to acknowledge that I have seen this and that I am not ignoring it, but I have been digging for sources for a few hours now for a different article that's at AfD (trying to find a video) and my brain is absolutely fried at the moment. I absolutely will take a look at this and comment on it soon. - Aoidh (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the work you've done here, @Modernponderer! I obviously hadn't come across these reviews, but they are exactly what I was half-hoping someone would come up with to save the article (the COI of the software's main author writing the initial article notwithstanding). Sadly, they don't appear to establish the software's main claim to fame, its longevity, as such, but they allow it to meet at least one of WP:NSOFT's criteria, and so I'm happy to rescind the nomination to work on improving the article. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have struck my delete rationale above and am commenting here as to why. Thank you Modernponderer for finding those sources. I also checked archive.org before commenting originally and didn't come across these reviews, so I'm just going to chalk that up to you being better at searching through that resource than I am (and as an aside, your comment about sources vanishing is exactly why archive.org is one of the most important resources on the internet by far). I would have liked to have seen more than just three reviews and maybe something outside of just reviews, but with these sources the article's subject does meet the third bullet point of WP:NSOFT's inclusion criteria and also WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 00:12, 24 September 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. WaggersTALK 15:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modiguard[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable company, the only sources I could find were all routine announcements of product launches, investments and acquisitions, nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:11, 23 September 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! 23:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Takashi Yoshimatsu[edit]

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

An apparent edit war was brewing between two editors, one of whom wanted to convert this article to a redirect, the other arguing for its retention. The editor in favor of redirection has argued "this has been tagged as unverified for 13 years now", while the editor in favor of retention has argued "The works are real - publications exists". In other words a classic battle. The article doesn't really qualify for speedy deletion, and I believe PROD would just be a delaying action before bringing here. I am under the impression that there might be support for some of the works listed, but likely not all. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At least in English, I can find no reliable sources (including books) that describe the man's body of work as a corpus or discography that merits study in its own right. Therefore it is not necessary to have a WP list article that includes every single one of his compositions. Those that have received reliable study and analysis can be mentioned selectively, with sources, at the musician's main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer + I also couldn't find any such coverage. QuietHere (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, passes NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Percival Vete[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't he pass WP:NPOL as a former member of the Tongan legislature? Cbl62 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Cbl62. WP:NBIO states that members of legislative bodies are "likely to be notable", however in this case it seems that this isn't supported by in-depth coverage. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to "Saints of Tonga" of Tonga, so can't evaluate its depth of coverage on Vete. I'd note, though, that the presumption flowing from passing NPOL should count for something. And we have some decent coverage from American newspapers during his brief time in the USA. If we had access to Tongan newspapers, we'd almost certainly have enough to push this one over the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted. There is no statement about historical significance apart from his being elected to the Tongan legislative assembly. What did he accomplish there? At the very least, the last paragraph should be deleted as unimportant. 66.44.12.164 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. There's also clear sourcing on him from the Deseret News article, plus assorted other minor mentions to confirm details of his life. The problem here is lack of access to 1940 - 1980's Tongan media, not that he's not notable.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is verifiable that the subject was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Tonga. This provides a WP:NPOL pass. But, the larger point is that meeting the criteria of an SNG usually suggests that the individual has certain "real-world" notability or ""worthy of notice" or "note" — that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"" The community determined that all elected officials serving in a national or state/provincial legislature is "worthy of notice" and should warrant their own article. Verifying the subject served in a notable office is sufficient for keeping the article since there will be sources of election results, votes, legislative speeches that can be used to flush out an article. --Enos733 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NPOL, as added sources make clear. Ingratis (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NPOL functionally operates in lieu of WP:GNG, in contrast to most other SNGs; this is also the case for WP:NPROF and (usually) WP:GEOLAND#1. As he is sourced as being a Tongan MP, he thus passes NPOL and is considered notable for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strictly speaking, NPOL doesn't replace GNG — the real issue is that since NPOL-passing politicians always have sufficient coverage to pass GNG, but Wikipedians haven't always actually done the work needed to ensure that our article about them actually uses all of their best sourcing, NPOL really exists as a "don't waste your time arguing the non-notability of figures whose articles are improvable" proviso. I do see the problem at the time of nomination, but the article has been improved. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • NPOL-passing politicians always have sufficient coverage to pass GNG I have some members of Congolese provincial governments from the 1960s I'd like to introduce you to in that case. In theory, this is what NPOL is supposed to mean, but I strongly doubt that this is actually the case. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Its particularly problematic for politicians from small countries with limited media sources which do not have historical archives online (which is most of the Pacific). But that's why we have NPOL. IdiotSavant (talk) 03:37, 25 September 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 deleted G5 by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ador Azad[edit]

Ador Azad (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)

Other than some interview & passing mentions, there is no significant and in-depth coverages from reliable sources. Fails every criteria of WP:NACTOR. Also WP:TOOSOON. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:10, 23 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeskProto (The Non-Machinist's Cam)[edit]

DeskProto (The Non-Machinist's Cam) (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:ADMASQ, fails WP:NCORP, sourced to PR pieces, press releases, and primary sources. Disputed draftification, more than once! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle, I usually move pages back when this happens. When the title of an AFD is actually a redirect, it really complicates both relisting discussions and closing them. It's like you have to do everything twice, first to the listed title and then again to the new title so I discourage editors from moving pages around until an AFD is closed. It's just an unnecessary distraction because if an article is Kept, then editors can move it to whatever new title is decided upon via a discussion on the article talk page. It's not like changing the title of an article that is subject to a deletion discussion is going to change whatever decision is arrived at here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I have taken your advice over custom and practice (as I interpret it) and moved it back to the title it was at when I sent it to AfD. I don't propose to get into a move war over it should it be moved elsewhere. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG (little independent/secondary coverage) and reads as promotional to me. I'm also skeptical of the author's claim of no COI based on language used, the original article title having the product slogan in it, and the download link in article body. Uhai (talk · contribs) 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Uhai,
    -"... and reads as promotional to me." - SHOW US - exactly which statements appear promotional to you? Don't just make your mouth go - provide adequate and justifiable visible proof. Show us a better way of issuing the statements to which you object to - lead by positive example not by negative criticism.
    -" I'm also skeptical of the author's claim of no COI..." - PROVE IT - go find proof that I am benefiting from adding this article to Wikipedia. Truth be told, the opposite is fact. Uhai - just because you think something is not ok does not make it so. Display tangible evidence or stfu. No one appreciates being accused of wrong doing without proof!
    - Finally - Uhai, you being a "Master of Science" - perhaps you could provide some constructive criticism by example - you know - to try and improve this article as opposed to destroying it by hearsay, innuendo and an indiscriminate reference to COI. DpProxyMan (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DpProxyMan, you need to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire tone reads like a brochure, but here's a couple examples:
    • an introductory level cam application - available at no charge via website download. with an in-line external link to the download.
    • The following is a general summary of desirable features applicable to DeskProto
    As far as COI goes, how did you locate the declined draft and copy it into your own userspace here. You disclosed you were in contact with the original author here who disclosed their COI here, so it's clear you have a COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads like an advertisement. I have not reviewed the references because the article has been reference-bombed, largely with unreliable references including Wikipedia and Deskproto and YouTube. The article was tendentiously moved to article space after draftification, presumably because the author either doesn't want to wait or doesn't expect to pass GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Liz or anyone else - That is one of the reasons why I still think that the AFD template should say not to move the article while the AFD is in progress. A few experienced editors say that it is important to be able to move the article during the AFD in case the title is wrong and the change of title cannot wait until the AFD is complete. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon would you mind also signing your AfD opinion, above, please. While it is possible to see that it is yours from history, making it clear will assist the closing admin 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Oops. I was distracted by something, maybe by disputed drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As already noted, the article is clearly promotional, and fails to show the level of in-depth independent coverage required. And the article creator clearly needs to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, since padding a reference list with citations to Wikipedia itself won't impress anyone remotely familiar with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been watching this since the first COI user wrote the draft, then a second user showed up and copied it to their sandbox. My own searching did not show sourcing sufficient to demonstrate notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:DpProxyMan - Bludgeoning an AFD has at least two problems. It is usually ignored by the closer, but it is also an indication of a losing case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 26 September 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. BD2412 T 04:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Parke Custis[edit]

Martha Parke Custis (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)

Taking to AFD after a PROD was contested. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a genealogical collection of famous folks' relatives or a memorial place for the deceased. This teenager wasn't known for anything of own merit (meaning things that don't have to do with family connections), plus most or all of the trustworthy references that mention her at all seem to be closely affiliated with mother Martha Washington and/or stepfather George Washington, and thus don't qualify as coverage independent of the subject. Such connections do not by themselves mean she warrants a page. Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear to everyone reading this...it was a completely different article when it was first nominated for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice biography but I don't see what she's done to earn a wiki bio. Was born, grew up, had epilepsy and passed away. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how this doesn't meet WP:BIO. One doesn't have to had "done" anything to be WP:NOTABLE and have an encyclopedic entry. WP:BIOFAMILY says Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. there are at least 5 reliable sources where she is mentioned more than in passing. It has two major published articles about her and her illness (and are even independent from the Mount Vernon Lady's association.): "The sudden death of Patsy Custis, or George Washington on sudden unexplained death in epilepsy" and "Epilepsy and Sudden Death: Notes from George Washington’s Diaries on the Illness and Death of Martha Parke-Custis (1756-1773)" already in the article, in addition to "A Cryptic Record of a Family Tragedy: The Unhappy Progression of Patsy Custis’s Epilepsy" in The Washington Papers which is a bit more connected to Mt Vernon but is also part of UVA. Additional searches have found:
Skynxnex (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that she didn't do anything important of her own certainly raises red flags. I wouldn't say dying from epilepsy or even having it qualifies, especially when far from the only person to do so. It admittedly doesn't feel like a very encyclopedic entry unless a subject's article is above all else focused on their own merits (and the use of "tragic death" in prose is blatantly subjective no matter how sad one finds it to die that way). Without or without being a child of a First Lady and stepchild of a President (which I suspect were the real reasons for developing a Wikipedia page to begin with), Custis at best comes off as a case of WP:BIO1E and in retrospect I should've specified earlier how I was referring to this section of WP:BIO. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted re: "tragic". For me, the main question is whether the page needs to be renamed to something like Death of Patsy Custis – but I still haven't gone through all the sources yet and haven't decided. (But from me, definitely a "keep" either way.) The page when you nominated it for deletion turned out to have numerous, serious issues including multiple cases of "Failed verification" – at one point I even wondered if there were bad faith edits (given the history with banned sockpuppet accounts) – so it has taken a long time to clean that up, too. For that reason, I think you were right that something "felt off" and was suspicious about the article, on top of which it was written a bit like a high school paper, with no clear claim to notability in the WP sense. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for how multiple other editors made non-minor contributions to this page beyond what the sockpuppet creator added (who has since been blocked) before I came across it, then I would've gone straight for speedy deletion instead of PROD or AFD. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see bad faith edits in the history when looking at individual diffs. Reworking the page into one focusing on death in the way you've brought up (which reminds me of how pages like Murder of Ennis Cosby exist) would certainly be preferable to what we have now. However, I'm not sure whether the death was significant enough to go beyond a brief mention on the pages for her brother Jack, namesake mom, or George. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have Edward Baker Lincoln at "Death of" either (and I don't think we should). He and she aren't just notable because of their deaths. Do you have examples of either people who have this much coverage about them, that isn't a a recent BLP issue, that have a death of page?
The sockpupperty/issues with current article isn't a reason to delete or move--just reasons to improve because she seems clearly notable and encyclopedic to me. Skynxnex (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not delve too far into WP:WAX, but excluding folks who were alive within the last decade, I have seen articles on death such as Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Assassination of James A. Garfield even when subpages of their respective biographies. There's also Murder of Martha Moxley which focuses on how its subject was killed and her name redirects to that article. Getting back to this page, sockpuppetry would've been quite a valid reason to delete it without substantial edits from anyone else per WP:G5 of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. I also just remembered that WP:A7 exists for bios that don't give any credible indication of how a person is important. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Skynxnex, there are at least three sources cited that are entirely about her. Moving to "Death of Martha Parke Custis" also seems reasonable. I expect merging would give her undue weight in her family member's biographies. Rusalkii (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I didn't want to get into WP:WAX too much other than looking for examples to apply policy from. For "Death of" articles my point isn't that they don't exist--of course we have many of them but they almost always are two different types: 1) a notable person's death whose death is so notable/covered that there is Death of in addition to their main article; 2) someone with zero other claims to possible notability. Neither of them are true, I think, in this case. It seems that the medical study about her death, articles by the epilepsy foundation, and other sources unconnected to Mt Vernon itself meet independent coverage and just because she is related to someone famous doesn't mean she can't be notable if enough people write about her and her life? Skynxnex (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood my point about famous relatives: having such family members doesn't automatically entitle one to a Wikipedia page, and it's not a good sign when a person gets more attention for those connections than any other reason. Her epilepsy doesn't strike me as very strong claim to notability either. This wasn't some one-of-a-kind medical case or anything like that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTINHERITED, Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Which she does, per my !vote below. Also, it's not up to us to decide whether her epilepsy was historically significant; we go by what the sources say. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the medical journal articles cited in this article, the case of Patsy Custis is one of the first well-documented cases of SUDEP or sudden unexpected death in epilepsy by a witness who happened to be her stepfather, George Washington. Washington and family members documented Patsy’s epilepsy from the age of five through her death in 1773, at the age of 17. The current article cites reliable secondary sources covering her early life, the progression of her epilepsy (and her quality of life) over time, and the various treatments of the day she received from at least seven physicians, leading up to her death. In-depth coverage focused on Patsy Custis in multiple sources which more than satisfy WP:GNG include:
Numerous additional sources are cited which validate the significance of the case of Patsy Custis from a history of medicine point of view, with mentions in journals including Clinics (2010) and the much older Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine (1933) in the U.S. and Rechtsmedizin (2011) in Germany. The article itself contained many errors and problems when it was first nominated, but has been completely rewritten now. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:21, 29 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Iten Sutherland[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this person; none of the current references in the article are reliable, and there are no news results when searching their name. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Buddhism. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced quotes and a CV, rest isn't clear as to what she does. I don't find any sources we can use. There are a few in Gbooks, but mostly brief mentions. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I won't get into the numerous issue with the prose as those are surmountable problems, (the article needs serious attention if kept) but the key issue here is the lack of notability. Outside of primary sources that the article's subject is associated with, there's no significant coverage that I could find with one exception. I did find things like this which are literally a single sentence trivial mention, but the only thing of substance I could find is this page (177) from what looks to be a reliable book. However, everything useful to be gleaned from those few sentences are all from her own description of her being ill; there's nothing original in that text that did not come from this article's subject herself, so I can't really consider that independent coverage in a strict sense. Regardless, that's literally the only source I could find that was both independent and more than a trivial mention (or that didn't just copy the text of the Joan Iten Sutherland article verbatim), and notability requires multiple independent reliable sources, not just one questionable source. - Aoidh (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG Andre🚐 17:02, 25 September 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! 23:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Haroon[edit]

Haris Haroon (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. Possible WP:SPAM which is sourced to blackhat SEO sites. Maduant (talk) 20:54, 23 September 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 Speedily deleted by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boligan Berto[edit]

Boligan Berto (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 entrepreneur. Probable blackhat SEO WP:SPAM. Maduant (talk) 20:40, 23 September 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. WaggersTALK 15:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amarildo Elmazaj[edit]

Amarildo Elmazaj (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)

Footballer who played for 4 minutes as a professional with no apparent other claim to notability. No hits in Google News or ProQuest. A search in DDG yielded only a passing mention in a list of footballers in Panorama. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any WP:SIGCOV that satisfies WP:SPORTCRIT either. Maybe he'll be notable soon, but not just yet. PopoDameron (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:14, 29 September 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! 23:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hosebird[edit]

Hosebird (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:PRODUCT. The article has been tagged for notability since January 2014. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 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! 23:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Saint Lukas, Dulovce[edit]

Church of Saint Lukas, Dulovce (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 building appears to be non-notable and a WP:BEFORE search reveals no info. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:03, 23 September 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) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exorcise Tape[edit]

Exorcise Tape (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 debut album by a non-notable duo with cult following. Reviews alone do not make it notable. Brief announcements about the release of this album are not reviews and do not count toward Notability.20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Notability is not inherited. The music can be described all day but if it is not notable, it simply is not notable and nothing the article can say or do will make it notable. Atsme 💬 📧 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC) *Addendum - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Queen for more policy-based reasons to delete. This album also fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NALBUM, fails WP:RS, fails WP:SELF-PUBLISHED (self-released by the now defunct Rad Cult which is Thomas Fec). Right off the bat, the first 2 cited sources in this article's single sentence lead do not support the material. I cannot verify that The Orchard had anything to do with this album. In fact, the editor who was arguing to keep Demon Queen created this article on 2022-09-19 while the AfD was ongoing. I do see cited sources with removed material which raises a red flag for me because the cited sources are like WP, a source anyone can join and edit. See the submission guidelines for PopMatters, one of the cited sources. Look at Impose Magazine, another cited source = underground, independent music scene - that is not mainstream and it is neither notable nor a RS....and the list goes on. For example, the NYTimes is cited but it is not NYTimes staff, it a Blog post by PopMatters. That NYTimes blog post went defunct in 2019. Atsme 💬 📧 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closer: there is an issue regarding this NN album being released by The Orchard. It is simply not true, unverifiable and the only evidence is an image of the defunct Rad Cult which leads to this FB discussion, and to this removed YouTube video. There is no verification whatsoever that The Orchard released this album. The false claim further demonstrates the issues we are dealing with here regarding unreliable sources, and raises questions about why this particular NN album has gotten so much attention. The album does exist, and the attempt to edit war back into the lead that The Orchard released it is quite puzzling, as is the attempt to present this album as notable in light of the announcement reviews of its debut. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: this is another baffling claim from Atsme which I have responded to at Talk:Exorcise Tape#The Orchard. To summarise, Atsme's claims appear to be entirely baseless and made up, and one allegedly incorrect label does not make an album non-notable either so it's not even a relevant claim here. And take notice of the multiple editors below agreeing that PopMatters is reliable and Atsme's claims against it are also baseless. And no such Facebook link even exists in the article! I don't know how they found that but it's not in any of the sources in the article, nor does it make any sense why it'd be considered a point against the article's notability. As if the most notable artists in the world never post to Facebook or YouTube. As I said in that talk page discussion, these are the kinds of arguments that make WP:AGF much harder than it should be on this site. QuietHere (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing baffling about my argument, and it would be much appreciated if you would drop the hyperbole when referring to my argument. Everything I have presented is straight-forward, verifiable, factual information from the research I conducted based on my years of experience as a WP:NPP reviewer and tutor at WP:NPPSCHOOL. The text below that album cover in PopMatters was either added to that graphic by the layout design team or was submitted like that by the author of that review, who is a music teacher at an elementary school in Houston. The Orchard did not release that album. It was released by Rad Cult as seen on the original album cover. Atsme 💬 📧 14:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG states: (my bold underline)
  • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. – this article has maybe 2 cited sources that will pass GNG. Some of the same sources are used more than once. Some of the cited sources accept submitted reviews and we don't know the qualifications of the person who submitted the review, or if it was by the musicians themselves – there is no editorial oversight that I can tell. Another source uses volunteer reviewers who work from home. Another uses anonymous reviewers, which makes qualifications unverifiable. Another gets paid for its reviews so it is not independent. The 2 sources that may qualify talk more about the people than the album, so that is a fail of GNG.
  • Notability (music) states: (I have bolded or underlined what applies directly, and why it fails)
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (This is also the GNG fail) Just because an online reviewers agreed to review a self-released, submitted debut album from an unknown NN duo, does not make the album notable, especially when they review anything and everything that is submitted to them.
  • Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:
    The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
    Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising. (N/A)
    Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. (NA)
  1. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart. *Fails
  2. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country. *Fails
  3. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. *Fails
  4. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). *Fails
  5. The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. *Fails
  6. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. *Fails
  • This is a self-released album (same as a self-published book) that debuted in 2013, was submitted for review to some online review websites that will review anything and everything. The end. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I somehow mistaken in believing that WP:RS and WP:SELF-PUBLISHED don't apply to the subjects of articles but only to references? Could've sworn I read those both correctly and they have nothing to do with this AfD and I have no clue why you're arguing them, but perhaps I missed something somehow.
    The Orchard is mentioned directly in the PopMatters article in their own infobox. Are you viewing the article on mobile? Maybe that affects your ability to see it, but it's right there for me. I wouldn't have added it to the article if it wasn't there, and besides, one allegedly wrong label is not an argument against the whole article, just something that maybe needs fixing (though not in this case unless you have sources that contradict that piece of information).
    If you have concerns with the value of the PopMatters source, I'd recommend bringing that up at WT:ALBUMS. Perhaps you're right that their open submissions could be invalidating, though this is the first I've ever heard anyone claim such a thing so I couldn't tell you either way. Impose might not be a mainstream publication, but it's only one of over a dozen in the page so it alone isn't trying to cover for notability. And "and the list goes on" isn't actually an argument against the rest of the sources, it only implies they're no good without explaining why you're claiming that, and again let me mention the entries at WP:RSMUSIC which I brought up below. Those sources are all standard for usage in the music realm on WP, and I've never seen any objections brought against them that haven't been resolved (those discussions are linked at WP:RSMUSIC as well). If you want to actually call every source in the article unreliable, that's far beyond the scope of this AfD and a discussion which fits far better elsewhere, but also a concerning premise given just how much of WP could be upended by a ruling against those publications (though I doubt such a ruling would occur).
    Albums being released by artist's own record labels does not make them non-notable, that's an absurd notion. The Big Day and Wasteland are both clearly notable projects released solely by their respective artists. Several of Drake's albums have been released in part by his record label OVO Sound, those are clearly notable. And while it's off-topic and not actually relevant here, I'd also like to note that Rad Cult is not defunct. There are new releases throught that label as recent as this month. I don't know where you got the idea from that the label is defunct but it's wrong.
    Me making the article in the middle of that AfD was because I believed the article would be a strong candidate for a redirect target, a case I made quite clearly in that AfD. I don't see what you're trying to read into my intent for, I just made an album article that I happened to see was notable based on available sources from that AfD's subject article, plus the rest I found through my own searching. There's nothing malicious there. I (or any other editor) could've just as easily found the duo's page multiple years ago, seen those same sources there, and made the same album article well before you knew about it. I don't understand the purpose of even saying that here, and I don't appreciate the implications it holds regarding my intent.
    And I already went over GNG below so I shouldn't need to reiterate that. I don't know what you mean by "cited sources with removed material" so I have no clue how to respond to that (please clarify that point, thanks). And otherwise I think I covered everything. QuietHere (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote this before I saw the NYT note addition (which, for the record, was added after the initial "Addendum" post was made) and... what? There's not a New York Times source in the article, what are you talking about? PopMatters is not a blog site, it's a magazine which has nothing to do with the Times. That one legitimately confuses me, I have no idea what you're talking about. And that "last blog post" on the NYT page is from 2010, not 2019. QuietHere (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First off, I'm the article creator, suppose that needs mentioning. That aside, with reviews from AllMusic, Exclaim!, PopMatters, and Tiny Mix Tapes, all of which appear on WP:RSMUSIC, this article meets WP:SIGCOV easily. And that's before I also include the coverage from Spin and Pitchfork which are also both included on RSMUSIC, among others. I've seen plenty of albums survive on far less coverage and I really think this AfD is far stricter than I've seen most other editors be when applying WP:NMUSIC. QuietHere (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the "notability is not inherited" point, let me again remind you that WP:NMUSIC clearly states "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." Besides, inherited from what? We both agree that the duo is not notable, I never voted keep in that AfD. QuietHere (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources Sergecross73 - did you see what I explained about the sources? A blog post in the NYTimes? An open source that anyone can join, edit and submit reviews? Atsme 💬 📧 19:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any misattributions to the wrong websites, they should certainly be fixed, but I wasn't counting on any of that to come to my keep conclusion. There's dedicated reviews from Allmusic, Exclaim!, Tiny Mixtapes, and PopMatters in the reception section that are all properly cited. You seem to take issue with PopMatters, but it is currently classified as reliable, and the writer is a college educated writer with a degree in music, so I'm having a hard time faulting that one. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Sergecross73, I fixed my error. I meant announcements not reviews. ●°.°● This whole thing is a circular, self-released, album promo, garage band hype – easily bought promotion. Quote from ra.co News aboutTiny Mix Tapes: TMT's staff of writers, which included many operating under pseudonyms,... – that is not a RS. And look at PopMatters - there is a drop down menu that solicits reviews: Call for essays, reviews, interviews, and list features for publication consideration with PopMatters. If you go in and look at these cited sources at the websites, you can see they are not reliable. The album is released on their own label which is defunct. This all ties in with what they call "underground" and "independent" music – small cults, local garage bands and that type of thing. We have a whole string of these articles that have mistakenly been accepted because on the surface they appear notable, but when you actually dig in, you can see that's it's filler hype, fan cruft and unreliable sources. Just like that NYTimes citation - it was the blog and people writing in. That is not a RS, and certainly does not add to N. I've been following this whole little circle of the same garage band members and their 2,000 member cult following. WP was pulled into it, and the non-notables made it into WP. I am trying to clean it up. Atsme 💬 📧 20:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and I know nothing of this band or musical group or whatever they are. My objection is that there's already a community consensus for the 4 reviews in the reception to be usable, reliable sources, and those 4 sources are enough to clear the GNG. Anything else is more of a cleanup issue, not an AFD issue, unless so much info is culled in the cleanup efforts that some sort of WP:MERGEREASON can be rationalized. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is that there's already a community consensus for the 4 reviews in the reception to be usable... Already community consensus? Diff, please? Those reviews are questionable at best, and the same questionable sources are cited more than once to make it look like there are more than actually exist. This article fails WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS because a source is not independent of the subject if they are getting paid for the review as it appears to be with Pitchfork. I'm one of those editors who works really hard to save an article, and I've done the research here as an NPP reviewer who, unlike some of these album reviewers, does not get paid a dime for my reviews. This is a self-released album; therefore, it is self-promoted. We are talking about a small cult following. The cited sources are certainly not Rollingstone or Billboard, or any other reliable news with a music section except for maybe Exclaim!! AllMusic is just a database. Spin, maybe reliable, and Vice is questionable. Read the reviews for mxdwn.com by people who work there, some are volunteers like WP. We don't know what Tiny Mix Tapes is doing with their anonymous reviews. If this passes, it won't surprise if the next step is for WP to start accepting Amazon reviews, music blogs, Twitter, and FB posts. Atsme 💬 📧 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Difs? They're at WP:RSMUSIC. It documents all the consensus on sources from the various music Wikiprojects, and the discussions that lead to them. If there's no linked discussion, it's probably an obvious staple of the industry. The four sources I'm talking about are...rather commonly supported and used. We are not off on uncharted territory or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing that list, but it aligns more closely with being local suggestions at the time, some of which date back a decade or so. It is not community consensus by a long shot - certainly not at WP:RSN, and some were never even discussed, and were simply taken at face value. I certainly hope you are not judging strictly based on that list. Atsme 💬 📧 02:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to tell me what that list is. I know exactly what it is. I've spent years helping build it through holding discussions and digging through archives of old discussions of years past. I know exactly what it is, and I won't be swayed by your efforts to just handwave it away like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding above. Atsme, if your contention is that the (detailed and thoughtful) work at RSMUSIC is letting in sources of insufficient quality, the right place for that is an RfC; the general consensus, for what I believe to be very good reason, is that prose content from Allmusic, Spin, Vice, and Tiny Mix Tapes is some of the better independent music journalism of the past ten to forty years. Spin and Vice were nationally distributed paper magazines, and Allmusic published entire books of biographical summaries and reviews. Chubbles (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move relevant content to Demon Queen. This article demonstrates that the album passes WP:NALBUM, by a country mile, and coverage of an artist's work is coverage of an artist; much of the content here is better sited at the article for the artist rather than cluttering up the album article. The artist page was recently AfD'ed, but the discussion was badly conducted; we should declare a mistrial. Chubbles (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#AfD Exorcise Tape Atsme 💬 📧 01:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to a parent article. The 14 sources (and I have gone through every single one of them) are a classic example of Internet barrel-scraping for mentions - it doesn't matter whether or not they are RS. Some of their content don't appear to be relevant to the topic at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The last two voters suggested redirecting or merging to an article about Demon Queen or an undefined "parent" article. Well until recently there was a brief article about Demon Queen, but it was deleted in this very unsatisfactory AfD. That one was another lengthy wall of text highlighting a lot of conflicting WP policies that nobody resolved, and to my chagrin the same is happening here. There have been several requests for discussions of conflicting policies that are far beyond this little album and the musicians who made it. Still waiting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sergecross73. The Popmatters review of the album in particular supports it passing WP:GNG. The review in this case was written by an expert and subject to editorial oversight. A publication soliciting submissions from freelance writers is an extremely common practice and does not make a source unreliable. A direct review of an album is hardly irrelevant or a trivial mention, the WP:RSMUSIC accepted reviews support the article's inclusion on Wikipedia. W42 03:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: left a notice about this AfD at WikiProject Albums regarding claims about RSMUSIC entries being made here (which I made quite clear in the post, and it's definitely of major concern to that project), then decided it was too great a risk of accidental potential vote brigading so I removed it. Hopefully it doesn't cause any trouble. If anyone saw that notice and came here through it, please disclose for the sake of transparency/making it easier to know if I fucked up by posting that. QuietHere (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. Sources presented in this AfD and in the article are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The four reviews at AllMusic, Exclaim!, PopMatters, and Tiny Mix Tapes, which are listed as reliable at WP:RSMUSIC, seem to me to satisfy the first point in WP:NALBUM. In my understanding, this is fairly standard for album articles on Wikipedia. Note that I was linked here from WikiProject Albums, but (intentionally) didn't read the note left by QuietHere before !voting. Endwise (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's some fairly wild interpretations at work in this AFD. The four reviews mentioned above clearly establish notability, but in the nomination it's implied that PopMatters calling for pitches somehow makes its content user-generated? What? The nominator claims TMT can't be an RS because it's authors write under pseudonyms? The description of indie music as "small cults" and the scare quotes around "underground" used multiple times in this nomination are the real red flags here. Beginning to think it might be worth looking into this other AFD if this is the basis this one is trying to be pushed through on. Parabolist (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parabolist if by "looking into this other AFD" you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Queen, I don't think there's any concerns there (though feel free to have a look). As the creator of the Exorcise Tape article, I can tell you the coverage I found mainly focused on the album rather than the duo, and the album is their only release aside from the instrumentals-only version for which I could find no coverage. I don't think anyone in that AfD ever believed the duo was notable, it was mostly just a disagreement regarding appropriate redirect targets. I have my opinions about parts of it but I don't believe there was ever anything illegitimate in there. QuietHere (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is coverage of the duo's album, that is coverage of the duo. It makes no sense for us to write about notable albums from non-notable bands; a band that releases an album that has enough coverage to pass the GNG has, itself, gotten enough coverage to pass the GNG (and, therefore, also WP:MUSIC). There are cases where notable artists make side projects that we don't always class out as a separate article aside from the album (e.g., Along the Road by Ashton, Becker, and Dente), but that's merely an information-organization issue rather than a notability one. We can smoosh all the information about Demon Queen into this article (the decision to leave a redlink is indefensible), but usually we do the inverse, smooshing the album info into the band's article, and in this case there's enough to say about the band that's not specifically coverage of the sound of the record that it really does make sense to have a separate band article as well. Chubbles (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the premise advanced by Chubbles. Notability is not inherited, and that applies from band to their albums, and from albums to the band. If there is sufficient news articles (significant coverage from reliable independent sources) about the band Demon Queen, then an article can be created for the band. News articles about the album are not news sources for the band. The sources provided are coverage about the album, with insufficient coverage of the band to be supportive of a band article in Wikipedia. Each and every article in Wikipedia must prove itself with appropriate citations. There are several albums articles that do not have band articles, and I do not want to go down a rabbit-hole of inherited notability without a discussion outside of a minor AfD for a band album. If this is important, bring it to one of the project articles, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Mburrell (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has four reliable sources reviews that pass WP:GNG and that is how we determine album articles as per WP:NALBUM Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was brought here by the added and removed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums by QuietHere, but I was also involved in the Redirect discussion for Demon Queen, so I came here as continuation of that discussion. In the earlier Demon Queen discussion, I listed out three examples of other albums which are sufficiently notable to have an Wikipedia article, even though the band creating the album was not sufficiently notable to have an article, or at least no-one created one for the bands. My three examples are Forest Floor, In the Groove, and Witch Egg. To reiterate discussions from other editors listed above, the album Exorcise Tape has sufficient coverage from reliable sources to meet general notability, and the sources are agreed to be reliable by being listed in a Wikipedia guideline of Generally Reliable Sources, WP:RSMUSIC. For reliable sources to be dismissed should require a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums as a much larger issue than a minor AfD for an album, as it would require many more eyes on the subject. Mburrell (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Each of these cases illustrate why NOTINHERITED is misapplied in the band-album dispute. An album review is, by its very nature, substantial and significant coverage of an artist; musicians are not somehow magically divorced from the music they put out into the world for notability purposes. Forest Floor's artist is notable for the coverage Forest Floor received, and in fact I have just created an article for Fergus McCreadie. In the Groove and Witch Egg are side projects of musicians that are clearly notable; whether we site the articles at the band name or the album name, or merge them into the parent musician's article, are all information-organization questions, as I alleged above. (Or, at least, to judge them by notability is not a reasonable way to solve the information organization problem.) There may be a small number of edge cases where a group's coverage is dwarfed for structural reasons - I suppose if we had an album article for "The String Quartet Tribute to the Sixpack Band" or something like that, the "String Quartet Tribute" series's notability may be the motivating factor for the article rather than the ensemble that actually performs the music - but these are uncommon exceptions. In the ordinary course of things, album reviews demonstrate artist notability, and I routinely write articles, and have them accepted at AfD, on the strength of album coverage by RSes. Chubbles (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RSMUSIC per other comments above. Andre🚐 16:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the nominator appears to be arguing about whether or not the album was released on The Orchard record label. For the record, this is irrelevant to notability discussions. Self-publishing matters for source reliability. It doesn't affect whether or not the subject itself of notable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: my argument is that the information in the lead of the article is inaccurate because it states that it was released August 6, 2013, by Rad Cult Records and The Orchard, which is unverifiable per their own album cover here. Rad Cult released that album, and the only connection to The Orchard was a shout-out passing mention on FB and in The Daily Rind. No evidence whatsoever that The Orchard released it. PopMatters published a doctored album cover, and is one of the cited source. That is not a RS to establish N, and it clearly disputes what the keep arguments are saying about qualifying reviews. See Popmatters submission guidelines, which further validates my argument about failing N per WP:GNG. I demonstrated similar about the other cited sources as well.
  • This discussion has already been had at Talk:Exorcise_Tape#The_Orchard and doesn't need to be rehashed here as 1. It's not relevant to this AfD like Serge said and 2. You're misrepresenting the issue by rehashing your argument regarding the issue without acknowleding the multiple people who have already disagreed with you on this (including Serge who responded on the talk page and has presumably already read everything you wrote there). QuietHere (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And because you didn't say it in the talk page I'll respond to the "doctored" claim here. What? That's the same exact cover art that appears in several other sources in the article (TMT, Exclaim!, AllMusic, even the album's Bandcamp and Spotify pages). There's nothing "doctored" about the image. You keep pointing to that cover art even though I've made it clear the issue is with the text directly below it; at least use the correct language in your argument. But I digress; as has been said, this is a matter for elsewhere on this website. If you want to argue it further, please keep it on the talk page from now on and keep this AfD within its scope. QuietHere (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so what you're saying is that I can put an album together including songs/music I've written and intend to debut on YouTube and on DVD, and submit it for review by the online sources cited for Exorcise Tape (because those online sources are open to reviewing anything), and regardless of what they say about the album, it is automatically notable because those online websites reviewed it? Wow. I will get on it right away - never realized it was that easy to get a standalone article on WP. What was I thinking. Thank you for making me aware of this very important RS process. Atsme 💬 📧 00:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all that is true except for that fact that the reliable sources we are citing won't review your album as you described it unless it is artistically notable, and if they don't review it, you can't use their non-existent articles to support your vanity project on Wikipedia. You fail to realize that reliable sources are reliable because they have editorial review processes and have over time built a reputation for reviewing artistically acceptable works by choosing to review only legitimate projects. On the other hand, if you have the ability to put out an album that is artistically notable, I would like to encourage you to do so, as there is no such thing as too many artistically notable albums out in the world, and unfortunately many artistically barely notable albums as well, but that is most likely subjective. There are many ways to get your album noticed, You-Tube is one. Back in the day, Tiffany performed at shopping malls [10] to get noticed for an early album of hers. Many new artists are doing their first works on TikTok. Please, do whatever you have to to get your first album noticed, I am now waiting for your most excellent album. Once the reliable source reviewers have covered it, please have someone other than yourself, preferably a neutral third-party, create an article for your most excellent album. Welcome to the world of music, assuming you have the skills and ability to create that artistically notable album that you are mentioning. Wishes for a great album from you aside, what you call a vanity project by Demon Queen, others are calling a legitimate first independent album, supported by real, not purchased, reviews. Maybe you can take a deep breath, take a step back, and see that the editors who are not supporting your position might have a point, and this is not a personal attack on you, but support for a process of reviewing articles for keeping or deleting by using vetted news sources as acceptable means of justifying a decision, one way or the other. Peace. Mburrell (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your information...but just an FYI, I've been in the production/publishing/marketing/television industry for half a century. I know what goes on, and I know that websites and domains are easily acquired. The internet is amazing, and everyone has an opportunity to capitalize on it. It's not a book written by an academic, or a magazine that has editorial oversight, etc. – these online sites solicit reviews and business – they are happy to market & package your product for a nominal fee. They have volunteers doing the reviews at home – it's all there in what I posted, except for maybe 2 RS. Believe what you will, but facts are facts. At this point, if WP has lowered its standard to allow this album into the encyclopedia as a stand alone, more power to us. We are now the encyclopedia in which everyone and everything can have a stand alone article - all you need is 4 online websites writing a review about you or your product. How convenient is that? Atsme 💬 📧 01:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's great that you have industry experience, but I'm afraid it may be clouding your judgement here. Your comments are bordering on WP:IDHT at this point. A lot of experienced editors have participated here, almost unanimously against your stance. And you've tried to just hand wave them all away. It's rather rare to see such a one-sided AFD from such an experienced editor as yourself. I think some reflection is in order. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will gladly reflect on my argument when a convincing argument against deletion is presented and verifiably disputes the deletes. So far, that has not happened, at least not from the perspective of 2 long term NPP reviewers who do/have done these types of reviews daily for years. We have seen hoaxes survive WP to our embarrassment because of failed reviews, mistaken beliefs of notability, and a lack of careful research. The word "coverage" is used freely as if counting sources is all that matters, when what really matters most is if that coverage is reliable and independent, and that is where we differ. Why would one person's opinion make an album notable? We are not talking about an article in Rolling Stone Magazine, or in a book authored by a music historian, or in Billboard, or even in the music section of a national news source. Of course I will honor whatever the closer decides to be the strongest arguments as I did when Demon Queen closed as delete. The same arguments have been presented here, and should carry weight. Perhaps in the near future WP:NMUSIC will follow the example set by WP:NSPORTS – no more just showing up to the game makes a player notable anymore, and the same should apply for any album debut that is simply submitted for review for the purpose of promotion/marketing online. What other purpose do those online music review sites serve if not to market/promote music? For now, we will just have to politely agree to disagree, and let the chips fall where they may. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources like Allmusic or Popmatters are in the same ballpark as your Rolling Stone publications. Long term staples of the music industry and music Wikiprojects. Not that it matters. Rather than looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on it, you've opted the opposite approach of starting at your own personal conclusion and rejecting all evidence presented to you by experienced editors. The consensus forming here speaks for itself, so I'll leave it at that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike you, I have an issue with the false album cover graphic published by Popmatters. That misinformation is now in the first sentence of the lead in WikiVoice in this article, despite the fact that it is not verifiable, and that Rad Cult is the only one who released that album. Sorry, but I do not consider volunteer authors, or part-time freelancers who are not full time professional reviewers comparable to journalists writing for Rolling Stone Magazine at $50k+/- annually, and if you believe they are...well, that's like saying WP is a RS. After what I've been reading in this AfD, I have reached the point of WP:IDGAF. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 14:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD is not the place to change longstanding consensus on source reliability, so that's probably just as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your argument genuinely that sites that utilize freelance reviewers are somehow not reliable? Because, if so, that should get you laughed out of any discussion about music sources, good god. Parabolist (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with others. Reviews and reception within mainstream music journalism, especially long-standing industry stalwarts AllMusic and PopMatters, indicate notability. Also worth noting, since AllMusic was questioned earlier, that it is both a database and a journalistic site. Not all albums get reviewed and inclusion in its database doesn't help determine notability by itself, whereas an actual written review by a staff member does. Jr8825 • Talk 01:57, 26 September 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! 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition (Serbia)[edit]

Opposition (Serbia) (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)

Back in 2014, an AfD was held regarding List of Serbian parliamentary opposition leaders. This article seems to be similar to that one. The point still stands, the "Leader of the Opposition" is made up and it doesn't exist. The point of this page is to present a role that doesn't exist. Also, this article is completely unsourced, Tepić is in opposition but does not represent the whole opposition, and her party isn't even the largest opposition party. Vacant0 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Serbia. Vacant0 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Complete bollocks. I !voted delete, in the "leader of the opposition" AfD, this one with the similar theme was recreated in 2016. No such user (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, while part of me thinks it's a fairly useful article and offers information that could serve a purpose, I can't escape the fact that it conveys people holding a position that isn't officially recognised. This in turn means there won't be reliable secondary sources that recognise or discuss this position in detail. It does seem like something that someone has originally created and passed off as a notable subject, hence is not an article that can or should exist. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mars House[edit]

Mars House (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)

Spammy article written by an UPE. Coverage of the NFT is thin in reliable sources and has no sustained coverage. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pains me to say so, but the Business Insider and CNN articles are good, the Architectural Digest is reliable, but minimal, coverage. GNG is met from what I see. Not a fan of anything crypto/NFT, but it's there and GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The coverage of the subject in the already brief CNN article amounts to about two sentences. The community has not agreed on the reliability of Business Insider, so we shouldn't use that article as a basis for the subject's notability. The subject has ultimately turned out to be a clickbaity news blip without longevity or encyclopedic relevance. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 00:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The actual asset being described has only received coverage within the context of the selling of said asset, so it is an event that has the coverage; WP:PERSISTENCE applies. All of the sources either are around the time of the sale or are within a window of a couple of weeks after it, and per WP:PERSISTENCE: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. There's no coverage outside of that event, which itself is only a blip in coverage. That mixed with the shaky amount of actual substance in coverage Throast describes above means that this is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aoidh Andre🚐 17:01, 25 September 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. Claims of sources meeting GNG have been debunked and arguments around non policy based keep reasons do not carry much weight. Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Sarıgül[edit]

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

Article about footballer with only three appearances in professional football which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There are certainly passing mentions and routine coverage such as transfer announcements, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Hürriyet article is not WP:SIRS (a 4-sentence career recap in what is a routine transfer announcement), and it wouldn't help the article pass the GNG by itself even if it were. Here is a Google translation of the article:
"Murat Sarıgül, who was included in Karagümrükspor's Süper Lig squad and was shown as one of the great stars of the future who exhibited successful football, stood out with his technique, game intelligence and mastery of standing balls. Murat Sarıgül, who was expected to have a completely different career, could not catch the expected explosion and his professional league adventure was very short-lived.
In the 2020-21 season, Murat played 2 games in 3 Turkish Cups in the Süper Lig at Karagümrük and played against Fenerbahçe and Beşiktaş in friendly matches. Last season 2. The young footballer, who played 4 official matches for Bodrumspor, the champion of the league, was transferred to Beyoğlu Yeni Çarşıspor but did not have a chance here.
When Murat Sarıgül did not leave behind the misfortunes, he accepted the offer of Küçükçekmece Sinopspor for the 2022-2023 football season." Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hürriyet article is a reliable source and it is significant coverage. Gazozlu (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. The Huriyet source above is Ok, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ortizesp and recent expansion. He played in fully pro Turkish top flight and has ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC make no mention of playing in a fully pro top flight league or having an ongoing career as relevant criteria for notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . I'm with GiantSnowman on this. I'm just about willing to accept the source from Huriyet, but I need to see another source. Ping me if you find it! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also don't believe the one transfer announcement is nearly enough to satisfy GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than just transfer announcements, the articles in Silivri Hürhaber and Hürriyet are entirely about him. How to ping?--Gazozlu (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you share the Silivri Hürhaber article you're referring to? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.silivrihurhaber.com/super-lig-oyuncusu-kucukcekmece-sinopspor-da-87876.html Gazozlu (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, but isn't Hür Haber an online news portal? I assume this is the portal's page for Silivri. Looking at the article it is nearly taken verbatim from the Hürriyet article (which of course was hosted on the Fanatik sports news portal). There is a small amount of extra text, but overall I'm thinking the Fanatik version is perhaps a summary/snippet from the original Hürriyet article, and so is the Silivri Hür Haber version. So, is this really two instances of coverage, or just one? Neither is particularly in depth in my opinion. Jogurney (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I could have answered my own question quite easily! Here is the Hürriyet article published 20 September 2022. It is the exact same as the Hür Haber version and the Fanatik version just leaves out a few sentences. Hür Haber and Fanatik published their versions the same day, and Fanatik actually attributed it to Hürriyet. So conclusively, we have one source, not two (or three if you want to try to count Fanatik as having a separate version of the same article). Jogurney (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hürriyet =/= Hürhaber
    I initially thought that Hürriyet copied from the Hürhaber article as well due to some similarities, but upon a closer examination the prose is different and not a copy. Gazozlu (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost exactly the same with just a couple of sentences slightly reworded. It's not enough for me, I'm afraid. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is significant copying, one of them just adds in slightly more content and does some minimal rewording. Bolding is identical, underline is substantially similar, italic is a weird phrase one of them repeats.
    Hurriyet:

    Karagümrükspor'un Süper Lig'e çıktığı kadrosunda yer alan ve başarılı Futbol sergileyen geleceğin büyük yıldızlarından olarak gösterilen, Murat Sarıgül tekniği, oyun zekası ve duran toplardaki ustalığı ile ön plana çıkıyordu. Bambaşka bir kariyeri olması beklenen Murat Sarıgül, beklenen patlamayı bir türlü yakalayamayınca profesyonel lig macerası çok kısa sürdü.
    2020-21 sezonunda Karagümrük'te Süper Lig'de 3 Türkiye Kupası'nda 2 maça çıkan Murat hazırlık maçlarında Fenerbahçe ve Beşiktaş'a karşı oynamıştı. Geçen sezon 2. Lig'de şampiyon olan Bodrumspor'da 4 resmi maça çıkan genç futbolcu Beyoğlu Yeni Çarşıspor'a transfer olsa da burada şans bulamadı.
    Murat Sarıgül şansızlıklar arkasını bırakmayınca 2022-2023 futbol sezonu için Küçükçekmece Sinopspor'un teklifini kabul etti.


    Silivri Hurhaber:

    Karagümrükspor'un Süper Lig'e çıktığı kadrosunda yer alan ve başarılı futbol sergileyen geleceğin büyük yıldızlarından olarak gösterilen, Murat Sarıgül; tekniği, oyun zekâsı ve duran toplardaki ustalığı ile ön plana çıkıyordu. Bambaşka bir kariyeri olması beklenen Murat Sarıgül, beklenen patlamayı bir türlü yakalayamayınca profesyonel lig macerası çok kısa sürdü.
    Genç futbolcu amatör liglere düşen isimlerden biri olarak bölgesel amatör lig takımlarından Küçükçekmece Sinopspor'a transfer oldu. Aralık 2018'de profesyonel olup Fatih Karagümrük SK ile futbol kariyerine başlamadan önce sırasıyla 2012-2018 arasında amatör olarak Küçükçekmece Yeşilova Esnafspor, Beylerbeyi, Halkalı Tavşantepe, Bucaspor ve Galatasaray SK altyapılarında oynadı. 2018'de Karagümrük'te profesyonel olmasının ardından Karagümrük'le 2 Türkiye Kupası maçına çıktı, Süper Lig'de oynadığı oynayan genç futbolcu 2022 yılında Bodrumspor transfer oldu daha sonra Beyoğlu Yeni Çarşı takımına kiralık olarak giden Murat Sarıgül şansızlıklar arkasını bırakmayınca 2022-2023 futbol sezonu bölgesel amatör lig takımlarından Küçükçekmece Sinopspor'a transfer oldu.

    JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Hurhaber article, which has a credited author and is also published earlier was used as a source but not credited by Hurriyet. Then Fanatik came along and credited Hurriyet.
    This Fanatik article is diffrent however and is also reporting on a diffrent event. Gazozlu (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is another transaction announcement, derived directly from the club's press release, and is not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes well it's a piece that contains a statement from the club. The article is about his leaving the club Bodrumspor. All the news articles that are entirely dedicated to a footballer are almost always articles talking about transfers, transfers are significant events in football. I think if a prominent news agency is bothering to cover the transfer of a player in a dedicated article that that should be considered significant. This page: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football is not really helpful. Gazozlu (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I located some additional coverage so in addition to:
    There's also these:
    Gazozlu (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are all trivial transfer/signing reports pretty much directly from his clubs, nothing SIGCOV or non-ROUTINE. JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Transactional reports of any type are considered ROUTINE and don't count towards GNG. If all that can be said of an athlete in independent RS is a few sentences paraphrasing a transfer, the subject isn't notable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I did go over the sources that Gazozlu found but in my opinion none of them can be considered significant. Alvaldi (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources discussed throughout this AfD all lack depth, despite there being a reasonable number of them. All the passing mentions and squad list mentions in the world would not add up to a passing of GNG as it does not give us enough of a reason to have a stand-alone article in a general encyclopaedia. There doesn't seem to be any reasonable chance of a meaningful biography being built, since little coverage exists outside of routine transfer announcements and match reports/stats databases, which merely confirm the number of minutes of a match played by Sarıgül. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, the two relevant criteria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Wikipedia:SPORTBASIC actually says the sources must be beyond "routine game coverage". This leaves out coverage of transfers which in this discussion has been referred to as routine coverage, but according to SPORTBASIC game coverage is routine and transfer coverage is beyond routine. There exists alot of routine game coverage, but the sources that I listed are not those. Also it appears that this subject does actually does pass WP:FOOTYN, the criteria that is listed on FOOTYN which this article meets is supported by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FOOTYN has a note on it which states The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that, however it is a positive indicator. If we look at Wikipedia:SPORTBASIC it says:
  • Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject checkY There is, the Hurhaber article.
  • Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. checkY the further articles in Fanatik, NTV Spor, and Milliyet are reliable further sources that are not routine game coverage. This is an example of routine game coverage.
Furthermore these sources:
  • Are not trivial checkY, are not fansites checkY, are not primary sources checkY, are from reliable agencies checkY
Gazozlu (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fanatik is indeed trivial as it mentions his release from Bodrumspor, with a very brief statement from the club and one more sentence saying that he played 3 games of football for them. NTV Spor is even worse as it's just a single trivial mention in a list of players whose contracts are expiring. Milliyet confirms that Bodrumspor have signed Sarıgül but contains absolutely no other information about him. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial is if he is namedropped in an article that is largely not about him. There's enough articles that are, although some short, about him. Gazozlu (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They key bit is in the first sentence of that section: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (emph. added). Ljleppan (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality (psychology)[edit]

Plurality (psychology) (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 survived a deletion attempt a decade ago because all the headmate bullshit was purged from it. Unfortunately it has come back with a vengeance, relying on two website pages that almost certainly don't count as reliable sources. If you cut everything only cited to those two sources, you're left with a very short article that could easily be merged into the DID article or similar, and while still up will attract users wanting to reinstate the purged content. Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 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 12:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maheswar 5th Plan Primary School[edit]

Maheswar 5th Plan Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. Prod removed with addition of single ref which is only a passing mention. Onel5969 TT me 11:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Madeline (part of me) 12:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources are insufficient to pass the general notability guideline or notability guideline for companies per NSCHOOL. There is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet either. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
now you can check ✅ added relevant sources.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaselHasan (talk • contribs) 18:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://school.banglarshiksha.gov.in/ws/website/index/19030113301
  • Delete – there are currently two references. One is a primary source, and the other has an incidental mention with every other polling station in the area. There is nothing notable about this school. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and West Bengal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 23 September 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 10:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daastan Publishers[edit]

Daastan Publishers (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. Refs are PR. scope_creepTalk 08:20, 23 September 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 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luscious Cosmetics[edit]

Luscious Cosmetics (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)

Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 08:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Madeline (part of me) 12:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCORP per nom, also probably an article by a UPE, so TNT. There are two decent sources (allure and glamour), so I'm sure this might be notable, but it still needs a "blow it up and start again" approach if it is to remain. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument to keep is an alleged community consensus to keep such lists for "players who have been the record goalscorer for their national team". But this is not substantiated by a community-accepred guideline to this effect, and it does not address the argument for deletion (WP:GNG), which means that this argument for keeping the article must be disregarded. There is a proposal to redirect this title to Vivian Woodward#International goals as a WP:ATD, but it is not clear from this diescussion whether there is a need for such a redirect. It can therefore be created separately if desired. Sandstein 09:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Vivian Woodward[edit]

List of international goals scored by Vivian Woodward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following list because it lists hat-tricks scored in amateur matches and not professional ones:

List of England national amateur football team hat-tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The list article fails WP:GNG as he's only the 10th-highest record goal-scorer in England history. Not to mention that it includes the goals he scored for England's amateur team, which has are senior team matches. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the two nominations being separated, changed vote for this nomination to keep as the list of goals of a former national record holder. Frank Anchor 01:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, no prejudice to separate re-nominations. GiantSnowman 16:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - consensus is to have such articles for players who have been the record goalscorer for their national team. Woodward was the record holder for four decades. His goalscoring feats for England also continue to attract coverage long after his death eg this article from 2005
  • Delete: Now that the procedural issues are solved, would someone care to look at the start-class Vivian Woodward? What information that has not been copied from that article can certainly be added to it from this one, if there is anything reliably sourced, that might certainly create a better article. I am a little confused! The main reason the subject is notable is his Olympic career. This is relegated to the last sentence of the second paragraph here that at least has more content, "Woodward captained England amateur (or Great Britain) to gold medals at the 1908 Olympics in London and in Stockholm in 1912, scoring three goals in 1908, including one in the final, and other two in 1912." The subjects article just states, "He captained Great Britain to gold medals at the 1908 Olympics in London and in Stockholm in 1912", but does contain a one sentence "Olympic career" section. I woud think expanding that section a worthy undertaking. I might have missed it but it would seem that using someone else's work, without giving credit, we refer to as plagiarism. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Has there ever been an RfC on the notability of "List of international goals scored by..."? It seems like these articles are common, with a couple even reaching FA status. However, like this page, they simply consist of a nice little lede (that can arguably be merged to the parent page) and then a list of stats backed up by match results from a directory. I mean, we don't have a list of "List of touchdowns by..." or "List of races by...", do we? Why? I Ask (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Vivian Woodward#International goals. Vivian Woodward is a very notable football player, but the threshold should be very high before we split out an article that is essentially a second biography. Game statistics, and a list of goals are already included in the main Vivian Woodward article, and as an alternative to deletion, I think redirecting the article to that section makes sense. Goals scored for the amateur team are probably insufficiently notable for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 23 September 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 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrakona Vidyasagar Mahavidyalaya[edit]

Chandrakona Vidyasagar Mahavidyalaya (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 institute, no evidence of satisfying WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Doing WP:BEFORE, it appears on all standard catalogue (Handbook of Universities 2006, Directory of Libraries in India 1989 etc.), but no in-depth coverage. Same as this recently deleted article and countless others. I am not mass-nominating, but maybe I should. Muhandes (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 23 September 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. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Porna Chakma[edit]

Ritu Porna Chakma (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)

Football player who fails GNG. Only trivial mentions in media. Page persistently misused as a personal webpage by either subject or someone close by uploading personal photos and updating external link with random facebook posts BlameRuiner (talk) 06:12, 23 September 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thunivu[edit]

Thunivu (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)

Thunivu

This article is very incomplete, without even a lede sentence, although the short description suffices for that purpose, and so is only a cast listing for a future film. It also has no references. As such, it fails verifiability, general notability, and film notability. There is also a draft, Draft:Thunivu, which has been correctly declined, and has been resubmitted. It appears that this is an attempt to sneak an entry into article space. Since there is already a draft, the article should simply be deleted, and the draft can be updated and resubmitted when the film is released. I recommend that the title be extended-confirmed protected in article space to prevent further efforts to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 23 September 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! 05:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Waters[edit]

Nancy Waters (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)

Waters is a county clerk in Michigan, in the United States. There is not enough in-depth coverage of her to demonstrate notability. Neither her clerkship or her prior position as a county commissioner give her presumed notability per WP:NPOL. The most in-depth source I could find on her was this M Live article about her issuance of same-sex marriage licenses during a very brief period of legality in Michigan. This is the focus of much of the coverage of Waters, most of it incidental, and it's hard not to see this as a WP:BLP1E situation. I'd suggest a merge to Same-sex marriage in Michigan, but I think the short mention of her there is about all that is due. News pieces that give non-trivial treatment of Waters outside of that less-than-one-day period are just routine election coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Michigan, and Sexuality and gender. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found two other sources, and one that could contribute to notability in which she was awarded "civil libertarian of the year" by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan's Western Branch. That doesn't, however, get us beyond WP:BLP1E, the one event which they both address, and a regional ACLU award for that WP:BLP1E doesn't put here over the top for GNG. Lamona (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:BLP rules clearly state the being elected to or holding low-level municipal office does not make one notable for the purpose of a Wikipedia article. There is no notability here of lasting significance or worthy of coverage beyond regional day-to-day routine coverage. Wikipedia can’t have articles for every person holding every possible political or government position. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:32, 25 September 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! 04:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Adalat (2001 film)[edit]

Meri Adalat (2001 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "take it to AFD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Mellohi!: Not sure why you pinged me and what exactly you want. Shshshsh is indeed on a spree of halting another spree of "defective" prodding of Indian films without article improvement on the part of the nominator(s). Shshshsh also happens to be one of the editors who's saved numerous AfDs with WP:HEY. I want articles to be given a chance of improvement, not necessarily by me, on AfD where I see a chance. Again, I don't know why you pinged me, but if you think this rhetoric is going to make me think twice, you have another thing coming. I believe in inclusionism, I do not support mass deletions of this sort. Shahid • Talk2me 09:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources have been added, including two from books. This is indeed a B-grade film, but information is available, including BO statistics at Box Office India and inclusion at TV Guide and others. More digging in the archives is needed, not deletion. Shahid • Talk2me 10:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the TV Guide listing is little more than a cast list, trivial coverage. Still nothing for GNG. Unless we can find long, reliable articles talking about the film, this will likely get deleted. Simply confirming it exists doesn't support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: I know that, I'm trying to find more. Shahid • Talk2me 09:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. I'd appreciate if User:Shshshsh could find more refs. However, I was unable to find any refs per WP:BEFORE that plausibly contribute to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, the TV Guide has no critical commentary and is mainly a routine cast list (trivial coverage), this is echoed across all other refs currently in the article, which are either databases or non-significant mentions. VickKiang 03:45, 26 September 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 12:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 PJHL season[edit]

2015–16 PJHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, does not meet WP:NSEASONS, and I can find no sources that discuss the subject as a whole; does not meet WP:GNG. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has had a PROD removed; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Leaning towards deleted The information mentioned in the article seems to be incorrect as there is some confusing regarding the champion as well. The article stats that Saskatoon Quakers were the champions but on the Saskatoon Quakers page, it's mentioned that the team last played in 1958. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that it appears there were multiple teams with that name over the years, but one of the major hockey prospect sites lists the current Quakers team as being founded in 2002 and beginning PJHL play in 2007 [11] --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 08:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification. Appreciate it. Fifthapril (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sourcing but not convinced it would fail NSEASON in all possible configurations. Not opposed to someone properly sourcing the article and would re-evaluate if they did. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 08:34, 23 September 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 is complex since GEOLAND makes it typically easy, however we're unable to verify the existence of this Webb, therefore we can't necessarily determine whether it's a populated, legally recognized place. Happy to provide this in draft if someone wants to try and sort out the sourcing and then return it to mainspace. Star Mississippi 02:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webb, Arizona[edit]

Webb, Arizona (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 a community; appears to be a former rail junction and post office. –dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know about a post office, but it was the name of a freight stop: "A spur of the Atchison and Topeka runs south of the mainline at El Mirage and to Luke AFB. The station there (Webb, Arizona) used in the past for freight deliver, is no longer in use." from a book on Luke AFB. Not any kind of populated place. MB 03:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GEOLAND - populated, legally recognized places. this shows it had a post office, which means it was legally recognized and populated. There are dozens of mentions like this, this, this, this, and this, again showing it was populated. It was most likely a mining town, as this shows that the Colford Copper Co. operated a mine there. Onel5969 TT me 10:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source that shows legal recognition? I think I was mistaken in mentioning a post office. According to this, there were two post offices called Webb, AZ, in Cochise county and Yavapai county, but none in Maricopa. The problem with these passing mentions in newspapers is that they don't even give us enough context to determine which place they're talking about, much less meet the GNG requirement for in-depth coverage. We would need sourcing that actually discusses Webb itself in sufficient detail. –dlthewave ☎ 12:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. These mentions of Webb are most likely in Cochise County. This shows that the Webb associated with Colford Copper was "a station several miles north of Elfrida along the Douglas-Courtland branch of the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad." Not much of that Webb today either besides West Webb Road in Elfrida. MB 21:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, since we don't have a reliable source for the existence of a populated place here. The passing mentions cited in newspapers do not state that there was a populated place at this location and indeed may not be referring to this location since there were other Webbs in Arizona. Also fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no evidence of legal recognition and it clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Hut 8.5 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can it be definitively shown that the new sources are or aren't talking about THIS Webb, Arizona?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the links provided by User:Onel5969. These are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 01:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Besides the apparent problem that there may be three different places being discussed here, none of the material presented steps up to the problem that the passing references are irreconcilable with a curved siding on a spur line apparently put in to serve an airbase which didn't exist before 1941. For that matter, most of them can't even be shown to refer to this Webb, and both of the post offices appear to have been elsewhere, notwithstanding that we've not taken post offices as indicative of legal recognition. This is just not a notable rail spot, which is all it appears to be. Mangoe (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When a rail stop doesn't appear to have become a community by any standards, the solution in my view really shouldn't be to just delete any coverage of the location, but to figure out where the content should go. Perhaps a standalone article on the Ennis Spur [12].--Milowent • hasspoken 14:14, 27 September 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 Tai-Pan (novel). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jin-qua[edit]

Jin-qua (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)

Fictional character. Unreferenced, no indication of notability, a pure plot summary. I've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". It was DEPRODDED by anon with no meaningful rationale a few months back, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 23 September 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. These are discussions where it helps to have editors knowledgeable about specific notability guidelines participating. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasjit S. Suri[edit]

Jasjit S. Suri (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 scientist being a scientist. I do not see evidence of sufficient notability to qualify for an independent article. A loose necktie (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or it can be deleted as a non-notable subject, and if/ when there are suitable sources to prove notability, it can be recreated. What isn't notable isn't notable until it is. A loose necktie (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Madeline (part of me) 12:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably. The dude has 15000+ citations and an h-index of 60 on Scopus, and was senior author on two review articles adding up to 2100 citations and a bunch of research articles with 150+ citations. He has 870 coauthors which unfortunately Scopus can't handle displaying so I can't do my usual network analysis very easily, but I suspect these metrics put him in at least the top 20% of senior researchers even in a high-citation field like medical imaging. JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Citation numbers of 15,000 an an h-index of 60 seem to be sufficient to indicate he passes WP:NPROF, as these qualify as "above average" for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IEEE Fellow is explicitly listed in WP:PROF as an example of the kind of selective and honorary level of membership that automatically passes WP:PROF#C3. This article is actually in significantly better shape than many of our old stubs for IEEE Fellows. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As David Eppstein writes, we have usually counted fellow of the IEEE as meeting WP:PROF #3. The citation record in Google Scholar is impressive [13]. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As argued above, he passes at least two of the wiki-notability criteria for academics, thanks to a strong citation profile and IEEE Fellowship. I cut a lot of text that belongs on LinkedIn but not here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is the subject actually an IEEE fellow? I did not find him in their directory of fellows, which seemed strange. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's listed here, but that is odd. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:NPROF C8 and other subcriteria. Fellows of the IEEE are notable (and I am convinced that he holds the fellowship by the source found by XOR'easter). Fellows in the other learned societies likely are as well. The citation record is also quite solid (as one would expect). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:49, 27 September 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! 07:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hungama (2006 film)[edit]

Hungama (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "rmv prod" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Was unable to find any significant coverage. Fifthapril (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_September_23&oldid=1113404662"