Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Venus Faiq

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

Refs are profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep Talk 14:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Coverage appears to be enough for notability. Publications, career and awards provide further evidence. Alan Islas ( talk) 04:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The refs are mostly hand-made profiles and interview, but she is a poet and published. Nomination withdrawn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Támar

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

She appears to have worked with notable artists, but that alone is not enough to warrant her own article; and redirecting her article to either Prince (musician) or Destiny's Child (of which she was apparently an early member of) seems like a stretch. Speaking of the latter point, that information (as well as virtually all of the historical sections of the article) is unsourced and was added by IPs. (Speaking of that, I didn't notify anyone on a talk page because it doesn't appear that there are any regular editors for the article.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

My perspective is that it's a Prince song from a Prince album, listed in all retail sources and Prince directories as "featuring Tamar", so regardless of what the Grammy lists say, Tamar's nomination is tangential. But if that is enough to say that she was "nominated" for WP purposes then I won't fight it. However, note that my vote in this AfD is essentially the same as yours. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
At any rate, I deleted all of the unsourced information from the article (which was, frankly, most of it). I wouldn't be against a redirect to Prince (musician) now though. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
She was nominated for a Grammy alongside Price. That in itself is significant enough to have her own page. I think the fact that she was a member of the group that became Destiny's Child is pretty relevant, too. She also has a fairly respectable acting/performing resume ( https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1483963/bio). This call for deletion feels like it stems from a personal beef with her. 2600:8803:B601:EA00:7D17:5FB1:9D85:DEE8 ( talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think it's worth relisting this discussion once. But I have no idea what this artist has to do with politics or "personal beefs". We deal with articles like this one every day at AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 24 June 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 "keep" opinions don't address the reasons for deletion, namely what the inclusion criteria are or how this list topic is notable. Sandstein 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Christian freedom fighters of India

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

First line, and only non-list part of this page states that it is an 'incomplete essay'. Also violates WP:NOTLIST as nothing more then a list with no context showing why its encyclopedic. WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/ loopback 06:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I click on T. V. Thomas and find he was an atheist and also fought for communist rule, not freedom. Also some of these were just elected officials, they didn't doing any actual fighting, just writing letters and speaking out against things. Should be list of activists. Their religion didn't seem to have anything to do with any activities these people did. This list was mostly done by just one editor. Dream Focus 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 24 June 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, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Mark Hinkle

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines failed to produce any WP:RS-compliant sourcing that contained significant coverage of the subject.

This was a contested PROD. The prod tag was removed with the comment: "A Chairman for the Libertarian Party - notable". My reply to this good faith argument is that that national party chairs are not considered inherently notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians/political figures. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources is needed to establish notability, and it is decidedly lacking here. Sal2100 ( talk) 15:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:51, 24 June 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 00:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Students for Britain

Students for Britain (  | talk | history | 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 independent, long-standing notability outside of the Brexit referendum. QueenofBithynia ( talk) 18:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: sources in the article aren't sufficient to satisfy WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Most of the coverage relates to a single stunt involving two of the group's members; the Guardian article offers slightly more substantial coverage of the group itself, but a single source isn't enough. I wasn't able to find any other coverage beyond passing mentions. It's possible a short section could be added to Vote Leave#Relationship with other groups and this redirected here, but inclusion criteria for that section aren't entirely clear to me and adding this there could cause other problems. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 19:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Atrocious referencing, very brief article, no website, little media coverage and it’s not even clear what the organisation was. GeekBurst ( talk) 19:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Building the Virginian Railway

Building the Virginian Railway (  | talk | history | 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 isn't really an encyclopedia article, it's a personal essay in article space. Created in 2005 with zero inline citations, it remains essentially unchanged today. Much of this article simply duplicates Virginian Railway, and what doesn't is often more like a personal essay. Consider lines like:

  • "Gambling on that premise, the two big railroads saw to it that the "negotiations" were always unproductive, and Col. Page always declined to indicate the source of his apparently "deep pockets." By this time, Page must surely have been enjoying his newfound power in dealing with the arrogant big railroads. In fact, management of the funding Rogers was providing was handled by Boston financier Godfrey M. Hyams, with whom he had also worked on the Anaconda Company, and many other natural resource projects."
  • "If Col. Page and his Deepwater Railway scheme had met with an unpleasant surprise, as it turned out, the big railroads were in for an even bigger one. Page didn't give up his scheme, as most surely must have been anticipated. Instead, he stubbornly continued building his short-line railroad through some of the most rugged terrain of the Mountain State, to the increasing puzzlement of the leaders of the big railroads. They were unaware that one of Page's investors (who were silent partners in the venture) was the powerful Rogers. Henry Rogers was an old hand at mineral and transportation development, and his projects and investments seldom failed. His tenacity, energy, and organizational skills had led him to become one of John D. Rockefeller's key men at the Standard Oil Trust. Always ready to do corporate battle, Rogers wasn't about to have the Deepwater investment foiled by the big railroads."

The article goes off on a huge tangent about Booker T Washingtion which, while interesting trivia, is not relevant to the article's subject at all. There could potentially be a notable subject here, but what exists is so far from an encyclopedia article it merits deletion and starting over (at a title that doesn't sound like a self-published book written by a railfan. I suggest "Construction of the Virginian Railway"). Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 23:13, 24 June 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, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Panama

List of people on the postage stamps of Panama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another barely-sourced list in utter failure of WP:SALAT. The sources are just a bunch of stamp catalogs that may or may not be accessible. As with all these other lists, there is a rapidly growing consensus: even if we can verify that every single one of these people is on the postage stamps named, there is zero evidence of a source that proves the topic of them being on stamps is notable in its own right. I've seen some cleanup, but no attempt to dig for better sources, and my own WP:BEFORE on GBooks found nothing relevant. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:46, 24 June 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. MelanieN ( talk) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Florida Bible Christian School

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

While the school is closed, it existed during the internet era during which sourcing should be online. What I have found is limited to directories of christian schools (such as this and review sites. Nothing in depth.

I can find no evidence this school meets notability requirements. Joshua Henry was an alumnus, but that is a passing mention of the school and there are a handful of others, but notable alumni don't confer it upton the school. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Florida. Star Mississippi 17:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I see a lot of coverage for its baseball team. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] St Anselm ( talk) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- We normally allow articles on High Schools to exist. Notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    I've seen that for public schools as coverage seems more likely to exist, but less so for K-12 private/religious schools. Notability isn't temporary, but in this case I can't find evidence it ever attained it. Star Mississippi 03:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    Peterkingiron, High schools have not had any presumption of notability for 4 years. A public or not for profit private school must meet meet GNG; a for profit school must meet NCORP like any other business. And although notability isn't temporary, a change in our standards for notability are generally treated retroactively. 174.212.227.246 ( talk) 18:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I did a thorough BEFORE on this and PROD'ed the article. The baseball team story is tangential, and the only thing that really shows up. As far as notability not being temporary, that guideline states "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article." That is the case with secondary schools. They once got a free pass if they existed, but by consensus must now pass GNG or NCORP in order to be considered WP:N. This school doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV required. Jacona ( talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

No, this isn't about transferring notability at all. The baseball team is part of the school. If the baseball team is notable, then the school is notable. St Anselm ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I disagree. WP:ROUTINE specifically mentions sports matches as routine coverage. School athletics is covered in local press as a matter of course, and there is a reason why we have that specifically under that guideline. Further, that coverage does not address the topic of the school itself (it's history and notability as a school), which is supposed to be the primary subject of this article. One would assume the primary purpose of this school is to educate its students in academic subjects, not athletics, yet we have no SIGCOV of the institutions primary purpose or its history as an organization. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dariche Asemani

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

If this were a topic subject to CSD A7, I think it would otherwise meet the criteria. No assertion of notability, no independent source cited. — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 21:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion

Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS too. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 22:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Soumendu Lahiri

AfDs for this article:
Soumendu Lahiri (  | talk | history | 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 don't see the person received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or honor (recognition from the governor of West Bengal isn't a significant honor, they frequently gives this type of honor). The person's works hasn't become a significant monument, won significant critical attention. Full of self references, looks like created by someone close. Article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 17:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note that article has been deleted from Bengali Wikipedia. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 19:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
And also Note that @ আফতাবুজ্জামান is an administrator of Bengali Wikipedia . Tbengalieditor > Talk 02:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
According to your statement you told that, "Recognition from the hon'ble Governor of West Bengal isn't a significant honor , they frequently gives this type of honor" . But as per my knowledge is concerned I do know that the honors about which you are speaking about is also given frequently to the respected persons.
But the recognition from the hon'ble Governor of West Bengal, India is not "this type of honor" as per your statement. It is a prestigious honor which is not given to everyone and frequently.
I think you're trying to diminish the value of this prestigious recognition. Tbengalieditor ( talk) 04:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
A mere "Recognition" is not a significant honor, not same as e.g. Bankim Puraskar, Sahitya Akademi Award etc. Here a teacher from West Bengal got a "Recognition" from Governor of Jharkhand for writing a book, should we create an article about this person? This type of honor/recognition are frequently given, we should not keep this article just because of this. The article was deleted last year with clear consensus. Since then nothing has been changed. No significant coverage, no in-depth coverage. Nothing in Bengali either.
Pinging participant from last afd @ Theroadislong, CommanderWaterford, Nomadicghumakkad, Umakant Bhalerao, AniksDutta, David notMD, Whiteguru, Atlanticatticus, and RandomCanadian: -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
As per your statement that the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor is frequently given, can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from the Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?
If the person from West Bengal who has got recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of Jharkhand for his literary work, has written independent books and his literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers, and articles on his name have also been published on newspapers, then obviously the person should have an wiki article.
Soumendu Lahiri has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology. Name of some books are added in the bibiliography section of the article with their ISBN No. His literary works and biography have been published on some popular newspapers of West Bengal like- Anandabazar Patrika , Puber Kalom etc. Regards,-- Tbengalieditor ( talk) 07:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"Literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers", "has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology", has "ISBN" doesn't mean they are automatically notable. That's not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise you can create articles about every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper. Every writer who wrote some books. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 13:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You're saying at first that ' "Literary works has been published from reliable sources like newspapers", "has written some independent books of poetry and worked with other poets in various collective anthology", has "ISBN" doesn't mean they are automatically notable.' . On other hand you're saying ''That's not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'' It means you're focusing on significant coverage in reliable sources after ignoring them. You are accepting the truth in a different way which (The Truth) I said clearly earlier.
Every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper writes on newspaper but generally they do not become the subject of the news or article ; that is why except on notable persons one should not create wiki article on them (Every columnist, every reporter, every writer of newspaper).
As per wiki norms if an author has some independent books (It wil be more helpful if there is ISBN) , he has become the subject of a news article or has recieved a special honor etc. then he is notable (wiki-lawfully but not "automatically"). Please See WP:GNG
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
    • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
  • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "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.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
Please check the reference section of the article Soumendu Lahiri. There are multiple significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Respected Sir, you have not answered my question yet - "Can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?" As you have told that the honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is frequently given. Regards -- Tbengalieditor ( talk) 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Receiving significant coverage doesn't mean publishing your work on a newspaper, It means someone wrote about you/your work, and not just 1-2 line. Also it has to be in a reliable sources and independent of the subject. I failed to see those in the article, most of them are unreliable, self source, primary, or passing mentions. I already reviewed references section and that's why i started this afd. Wait for others to comment, if they think reference are reliable, not self source, not primary, or not passing mentions, article will be kept. You don't have to worry, i am not destroying your article. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 18:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Respected Sir, You have said, "... I failed to see those in the article, most of them are unreliable...". But please permit me to mention here that he has been the subject in news articles in depth and his works have been published on newspapers which have wikipedia page like- Puber Kalom, Anandabazar Patrika.
Is it not a significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject ? Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
No. Publishing you're work on Puber Kalom, Anandabazar Patrika doesn't mean you're automatically notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ আফতাবুজ্জামান Not only works, But also Biography in depth on renowned newspapers. Regards--- Tbengalieditor 🚀 ( talk) 08:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
References
1. a poem, primary, written by subject himself
2. interview, primary, unreliable source
3. written by subject himself
4. unreliable source
5. Written by his son, primary
6. unreliable + passing mention
7. passing mention
8. primary/unreliable
9. passing mention + unreliable source
10-12. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself
13. unreliable source + passing mention
14-18. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself
19. unreliable source + passing mention
20-27. primary + unreliable source + written by subject himself
28-30. unreliable source
31. passing mention
33-40. unreliable source
41-43. passing mention + unreliable source
IMO, Article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, but wait for others to comment, if they think references OK, article will be kept. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Widely circulated and renowned newspapers published from West Bengal of India, which have own wikipedia pages like- Anandabazar Patrika, Puber Kalom from which his works and articles have been published and you're saying these are not reliable sources. On the other hand The Honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is mere a puppet to you as you told previously - "A mere "Recognition" is not a significant honor,...". But you're failed to show as well as trying to avoid my question , "Can you please help me by telling the name of the persons (at least 20 persons) who have got the recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal ?" As you have told that the honor from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal is frequently given.
Lahiri has written four independent books and worked in many collective anthology which have ISBN, which also has no importance to you.
Whenever I'm talking about major points, you're misleading the conversation. Let the respected administrators come , they will decide whether the article will be kept or not. Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 ( talk) 04:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I have doubt about Puber Kalom. It's more about what type of coverage. 1-2 lines or passing mention on Anandabazar is not significant coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
No sir, his biography was published on Puber Kalom in depth along with other newspapers which have R.N.I No.(Government of India).
and above all he got recognition from The Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal, India. With Best Regards --- Tbengalieditor 🚀 ( talk) 03:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I should stop, there is no point repeating above discussion again. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Tbengalieditor, Q: Do have any connection with the subject? If not, how did you took this photo? আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more consideration of the sources from other editors who frequent AFD with more substantial feedback than "per nom". The discussion has to go beyond nominator vs. page creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 22:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Annie Hurdy Gurdy

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

despite having songs appear with others on shows and films, i don't see any coverage of Gurdy herself that would warrant an article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:35, 24 June 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. Fee free to create a redirect from this page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

South Road, Melbourne

South Road, Melbourne (  | talk | history | 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 unable to find any secondary sources covering the road itself, with my searches only turning up results for the Great South Road. I wasn't able to find an internal page that would be a suitable target for a redirect, so deletion seems appropriate for failure to meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 24 June 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. Nom withdrawn, no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham ( talk) 19:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Enrique De Jongh Caula

Enrique De Jongh Caula (  | talk | history | 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:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks - I did wonder about that. How many more living dead bios do we have I wonder - all those sports people! Johnbod ( talk) 03:53, 26 June 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 Merseyside Skeptics Society#Skeptics with a K. Information about the podcast is in the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Skeptics with a K

Skeptics with a K (  | talk | history | 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 pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. All the sources are podcasts, blogs, youtube, and other self-published, primary, or unreliable sources. I looked for more sources and found nothing. TipsyElephant ( talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Look in the References section or use ctrl+F and you'll find all of them. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I did my due diligence before commenting above, no need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. The sources extant are pathetic, and per the nominater, do not pass GNG or WEBCRIT. I cannot understand how you came to such a conclusion. Your list of media sources are not sources for this article, but simply links to their respective articles. The project assessments too are poor, bearing in mind the assessment criteria for RS content. C-Class is way too good. The refs are in fact self-serving refs to the podcast or the parent organisation, which cannot be used to establish notability. Please could you actually show which refs you consider establish notability, rather than brush off my concerns like you did. thanks. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
References (current version):
  • 1,3,5,6,7,8a,14a,15,17a,18b,19a,20,21b,22a-f,23,24 self-published, non-independent (podcast itself)
  • 2, non-independent (website)
  • 8b,11,14d,16,18a,19b,25c,27 self-published (blog)
  • 8c,9,10,12,13a,13b,14b,14c,21a self-published (podcast)
  • 25a self-published (YouTube)
  • 4,17b,25b?,25d (perhaps) qualifying source but not about subject
  • 26 can't access/unclear
Even the best of these aren't really about the subject - as an example, the BBC cite (25d) is simply introducing an interviewee by saying the guest "also writes the blog Skeptics with a K," which is not the kind of thing that confers notability. I'm not seeing any WP:RS. Agricolae ( talk) 12:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
No conclusion can be drawn based on C-class assessments. For most project, C-class represents the absolute bare minimum of having references, appropriate structure, and general coherence. Further, it is not 'awarded' by a project, but rather by a single editor of unknown expertise (and the first assessment given is usually used to populate the entire set, rather than separate assessments being performed for each project). A C-class assessment is no indication of notability. Agricolae ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Silja Line. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Harri Hylje

Harri Hylje (  | talk | history | 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'm not sure how a standalone article on a company's seal/logo is notable or encyclopedic in this case - it doesn't appear to have significant in depth coverage in rs in any language and what little can be sourced can probably just be placed in the company's article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Silja Line, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE ( talk) 15:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge, but it would probably be good to have Estonian/Finnish input to see if it has any real merit (I see there is an article at Finnish Wiki). Advertising characters can go on to have multifaceted careers, but the test would be whether it has any meaningful reference away from the ferry company, as others in the category 'Advertising characters' presumably have. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A close parallel exists in the case of Ville Viking and Viking Line, but there I have simply proposed a merger. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per above. I'm not seeing any meaningful coverage in Finnish media. Fi.wp cites mostly non-independent sources. There are two Markkinointi & Mainonta stories, but I've always felt a bit iffy about how independent that magazine can actually be seen as. The vibes I'm getting is more along the lines of "glorified press releases/marketing" rather than proper journalistic content. In any case, the stories are not much either: [10] ("we made a new logo which is no longer smiling"), [11] ("there's an interactive screen with the mascot on it on one tram stop"). Ljleppan ( talk) 08:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per all. The substance of this article comes from press releases and other inappropriate sources. There is a compromise to merge and there might be enough reliable material to preserve after someone removes the marketing/PR stuff. Jontesta ( talk) 01:40, 28 June 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Lily Amir-Arjomand

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the article needs some cleanup, but WP:DINC. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Loch Naver

Loch Naver (  | talk | history | 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 Loch. All references are just links to online maps, etc. with nothing supporting notability. Singularity42 ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep But the Loch is Notable, and the sources have information. Especially under the Fishing Section. It is like Loch Urigilll or Loch Borollan or Loch Rimsdale or Loch Hope or Loch Brora, why didn't they ever get proposed for deletion, they're smaller, more remote and are less important that Loch Naver? I don't understand. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but even on the OS maps I cannot find any settlements by the name of Redhackaistelll and Dailmallhart situated on the loch. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Canterbury Tail here on second thought it is a map and might not be reliable but it's still produced by OS. Also I think you spelled Reidhachaisteil wrong or maybe I did because if I search it up I get many results including a source from Canmore which I think we can all agree is reliable. N1TH Music ( talk) 17:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
So that's a dead abandoned settlement of a few houses, not an active settlement. No one lives there, so they're not settlements. Don't you see how much of this is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS to reach the wrong conclusion? Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Canterbury Tail I understand the part about how a dead settlement maybe shouldn't be listed in the settlements section, even though my judgement was if the place is or was populated than it counts, but I was probably wrong. But honestly, no I don't see how this is "Original Research" OS and Canmore both show me these localities or abandoned settlements or whatever they are called and I label them as settlements. The OS map writes them in a kind of text they would use for settlements and so does the map Canmore provides. Additionally the Canmore map (Which is an edition of OS) Lists places such as "Gravel Pits" "Sheepfolds" and other things I would associate with active settlements there. However if you remain certain that these do not classify as settlements that nobody has any issue with removing them from the list. N1TH Music ( talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Something which has hitherto not been mentioned regarding issues of active or abandoned settlements is that the population of this area was impacted by the events of the Sutherland Clearances two hundred years ago. For example, "Soon afterwards Sellar went to Achness, near the eastern end of Loch Naver, and gave formal notice to quit to some of the tenants on his land." [14] AllyD ( talk) 07:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve: This article was brought to AfD less than 15 minutes after it was created? I am not sure how much WP:BEFORE was done in that time, but that could have identified existing coverage such as the article (albeit brief) in the Gazetteer for Scotland. As things stand, it is a bit of a mess, with the article creator having responded by moving it to draft, and neither the draft nor the redirect carrying this AfD notification. AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding the history of use of the Loch, see also the summary in Groome's 19th century Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland [15] and the Canmore entry on the Grummore Broch: "This broch ... occupies a short, flat, projecting point of low ground on the north shore of Loch Naver ... On the low, fertile ground around the shores of Loch Naver stand many modern farms as well as two more brochs on the opposite shore." [16]. AllyD ( talk) 07:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
A little WP:AGF re WP:BEFORE, please? . I saw the article shortly after it was created as I was doing NPP at the time. There were approximately 50 or so links in the article in its original version. I went through them, and from what I could tell they were either just maps of the area or references to places nearby. By that point there had been no additional content to the references (the additional references added were after I tagged it for AfD yesterday). My logic was given the creator was able to add 50+ links to the article but couldn't find anything that actually supported notability, then they likely didn't exist or could not be easily located (I didn't know about the CIR issues raised at ANI at the time). Anyway, given there are better sources, I have no objection to the article staying with a major clean up. Singularity42 ( talk) 18:51, 25 June 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! 23:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Tse Ka Kui

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

Promotional, appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please delete it. I was forced by my then Boss, i.e. the very title of the article, to create a series of pages to promote his name. I genuinely think he does NOT deserve a wikipage of his own. PLEASE do delete it. Thank you. 119.247.237.33 ( talk) 11:34, 25 June 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! 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Carmel Heah

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

Promotional article for subject that fails WP:NACADEMIC. – Ploni ( talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- VersaceSpace 🌃 20:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Crawford's Biscuits

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

Sources appear to a blog, multiple postal directories, one reference to the Daily Mail but with zero way to go verify, and another blog. valereee ( talk) 15:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment While in no way connected to United Biscuits, I must disclose that yesterday I did eat an entire pack of custard creams as a result of this discussion and subsequent edits. Thank you. Coldupnorth ( talk) 16:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Crawfords was a major brand in Scotland for many years, As said above the sources in the article may not have been great, but there will be others out there and it is clearly notable. Dunarc ( talk) 22:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Um, I think this is a snow keep (flood of custard cream topping, or something), if anyone would like to do the honours. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to List of philatelic libraries. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Philas Library

Philas Library (  | talk | history | 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 place with one source about donations. Gabe114 ( talk) 15:03, 24 June 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) Tow ( talk) 15:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Senegalese people in Sweden

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

Unclear to me if this meets notability criteria Tow ( talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not think this page needs to be deleted at all. AmericanEditor350 ( talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I found Statistics Sweden, and that's where I got the information from. AmericanEditor350 ( talk) 14:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

IA Financial Group

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

Article about a company, not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to have their significance externally validated by reliable source coverage and analysis in media and books -- but the only "source" here is the company's own self-published fact sheet about itself. (There's one other footnote, but it's a clarifying note about the company name — "iA Financial Group is a business name and trademark of Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc." — rather than an external reference.)
And while there were other sources here in the past which got stripped in a recent clumsy rewrite by a brand-new editor with a very likely conflict of interest (user name = Inalco, which almost certainly stands for Industrial Alliance Corporation), it was still sourced entirely to content self-published by the company itself and/or simple business directories rather than reliable or notability-supporting journalism, so simply reverting the most recent edit wouldn't solve the problem.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat ( talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Anyone who wants a draft version of this can contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture and Tulane University in popular culture. A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia - list of works that mention Johns Hopkins University. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/ WP:IPC. PS. In case someone is wondering, "Foo University in popular culture" can meet LISTN, of course, WHEN sources exist. Before nominating this I was reviewing Brown University in popular culture, which contains two articles about BU in the works of fiction, etc. ( [22], [23]) JHU, unfortunately, has no such sourcing, and my BEFORE failed to locate it - still, I share those links about BU as example of soucing that could save this, if anyone were to locate it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:06, 24 June 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. Sandstein 12:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Disappearance of Jessica O'Grady

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

Lack of sustained coverage. Coverage appears to have been mostly local, with some limited wider coverage in true crime outlets. Daask ( talk) 13:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

1) WP:LASTING, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. There appears to be no indication in the available coverage that the inability to find her body has had a lasting effect on e.g. society or legislation. There also appears to be no impact on the related criminal case, e.g.
  • "Dornan: Prosecutors don't need body He says there is "significant" evidence to prove Jessica O'Grady's death" Zagurski, Kristin. Omaha World - Herald 10 June 2006 (via Proquest, abstract only),
  • "EDWARDS' MURDER TRIAL BEGINS TODAY A quest for justice, closure Loved ones still hope to find Jessica O'Grady's remains", Cooper, Todd. Omaha World - Herald 19 Mar 2007 (via Proquest, abstract only).
There is another burst of news in 2009/2010, e.g.
  • "World-Herald Exclusive: JESSICA O'GRADY CASE" Cooper, Todd. Omaha World - Herald 25 Apr 2009 (via ProQuest, abstract only, states only: "A trace amount of Omaha victim Jessica O'Grady's blood is found on the blade of a suspect's sword The key differences Unlike the car in the Murdock case, Douglas County prosecutors say, Edwards' room was not under the exclusive control of law enforcement."),
  • "World-Herald Exclusive: Kofoed charged with tampering" Ferak, John. Omaha World - Herald 23 Apr 2009 (via ProQuest, abstract only, includes "The Douglas County CSI director, who has processed evidence in numerous high-profile murder cases, faces criminal charges for his handling of evidence in a Murdock, Neb., double homicide."),
  • "WORLD-HERALD EXCLUSIVE: Edwards alleges evidence planted" Ferak, John. Omaha World - Herald 14 July 2010 (via Proquest, abstract only, includes, "Dunning said authorities collected overwhelming blood evidence from Edwards' residence"),
which do not appear to demonstrate WP:LASTING effects from the criminal case or the inability to find her body. In 2011, local news reported Cadaver Dog Leads To Reopening Of O'Grady Murder Case (KETV7) and provided a timeline of past events. In 2014, local news reports on a court hearing related to these allegations and mentions O'Grady's body still has not been found: Was Christopher Edwards convicted with planted evidence? (KETV7); in 2016, The Associated Press reports Nebraska man convicted in sword slaying loses appeal, local news interviews her family members in What happened to Jessica O'Grady? (KETV7), and in 2018, The Associated Press reports Court denies convicted killer's appeal. Based on this coverage, it also appears there was no WP:LASTING impact from the criminal case.
2) WP:GEOSCOPE includes An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. For this article, the event is mostly covered by local news, and coverage on the niche programming Forensic Files and Investigation Discovery does not appear sufficient to support this article, particularly as this guideline also emphasizes demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group as key to supporting notability, which appears to be lacking per the sources.
3) WP:INDEPTH notes coverage must be significant and not in passing, which includes analysis that puts events into context. This includes TV news specialty shows, not necessarily a narrative news presentation [24] (how the Investigation Discovery episode appears promoted) but possibly the Forensic Files episode. The routine news coverage and passing mentions related to her disappearance and the related criminal case do not appear to support notability per this guideline.
4) WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE states, The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance, and most of the available coverage appears to focus on the criminal case and appeals unrelated to the inability to find her body.
5) WP:DIVERSE notes, Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, and there does not appear to be a particularly wide range between the local news, the two AP reports about the criminal case appeal, and two episodes of niche crime television to show the significance of the inability to find her body. Circumstantial evidence was used to obtain a conviction, even though her body was not found, and appeals based on alleged defects in the investigation and other procedural issues were unsuccessful.
6) Per WP:NCRIME, Articles about criminal acts [...] are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline....
Per the guidelines and available sources, coverage does not appear sufficiently WP:SUSTAINED to avoid deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, so my !vote is to delete. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

John Hais Hardee Jr.

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

No evidence of notability. Seems to be part of an attempt to write a family history, where some members are notable, some borderline, and some like this one have no actual claim to notability. Perhaps an article on the Hardee family would be better, with this then as a redirect, but as a standalone article it just doesn't make the cut. Sources are primary or involved (written by family members), and looking for better sources gave no useful results. Fram ( talk) 13:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Sufficiently notable, unless a major in the U.S. Army is not notable. Seasider53 ( talk)

  • A major is indeed not considered automatically notable. Fram ( talk) 13:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't have perfect visibility to the sources, but the sources I can access indeed appear to either discuss the family in the aggregate (ref #2) or to be non-independent (ref #5 has same surname, ref #6 starts with "..my grandfather.."). As for Seasider53's argument, military rank alone (let alone a rank as relatively low as a major) is not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:NSOLDIER. Search engines are giving me only the standard non-reliable sources (geni, legacy, findagrave etc.) I'll happily change my vote if someone can identify actual notability establishing coverage, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Ljleppan ( talk) 13:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Ljleppan, thank you. We live and learn. Seasider53 ( talk) 13:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we used to consider that all holders of at least the rank of brigadier general (in the US system, other systems use different names) were notable. We have since decided even that was not a justified inclusion standard. Majors are way, way, way, way below the inclusion critieria. Wikipedia is not the place to post the family history research you have done on one of your ancestors, unless they are clearly meeting inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not an alternative to Ancestry or several other sites that allow you to post information on your family. That is no our purpose. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
How many wrong conclusions can you jump to in one paragraph? A lot, apparently. Seasider53 ( talk) 18:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hardee is not listed in Heitman's "Historical Register and Dictionary of the U.S. Army," which is an extremely inclusive list of all officers commissioned in the army between 1789 and 1902. The son, William, is listed, but neither John Jr. nor John Sr. are listed. This does not preclude their being commissioned in a state militia, but it's pretty definitive when it comes to the Regular Army (regardless of commissioning source). So even if majors were considered notable (and they aren't), the rank can't be verified using a standard secondary source. Intothat darkness 23:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Falls well short of notability standards. It appears this may also be the case for several other articles about members of the Hardee family and their former family plantation. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 04:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Shikhi Sharma

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

biography of a non-notable person MurielMary ( talk) 12:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sajad Gul

Sajad Gul (  | talk | history | 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 be known just for his arrest, no coverage other than that. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Hitro talk 11:46, 24 June 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 11:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Nuri Otay

Nuri Otay (  | talk | history | 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 pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 11:03, 24 June 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 11:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Huff (board games)

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

Numerous credible sources exist, including two books linked and another very old one from 1891 that can be found on Google Books, but are trivial, one-sentence mentions that are IMO not contributing to "significant coverage". An alternative to deletion would be merging into the article for checkers/droughts. VickKiang ( talk) 10:45, 24 June 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 11:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

RainCatcher

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

Sadly, I cannot seem to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable, independent secondary sources. I might be wrong and I hope I am. However, Google rarely lies and a Google search returned nothing. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I nominate this page for deletion for not meeting wp:ORG. GDX420 ( talk) 10:22, 24 June 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 Uppum Mulakum. ✗ plicit 11:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Juhi Rustagi

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

The log for this page reads like a who's who of new page patrol. It's a mess, it's always been a mess and I'd recommend it be WP:SALTed to stop it continuing to be a mess. UPE, fails WP:GNG, has been tagged, PRODed and now really needs to go. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

What about the log, /info/en/?search=Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Juhi_Rustagi&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=review&wpfilters%5B%5D=patrol&wpfilters%5B%5D=tag&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers makes it a "a who's who of new page patrol"? Why does it need to be salted when there is no history of re-creating the article? Vexations ( talk) 10:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Draftified, moved back, tagged and tagged and tagged. Also PRODded, PROD removed. Consistent issues include linkrot, copy edit, notability and blp sources tags. Yes, no re-creation, but also yes, persistent insistence on maintaining substandard article with poor sourcing and little/no notability. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah, yes, Link rot. That's definitely a reason to delete articles. And of course, copy editing. Another problem that cannot be solved by editing an article. Vexations ( talk) 11:55, 26 June 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 Murder of Anni Dewani#Shrien Dewani. ✗ plicit 11:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Shrien Dewani

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

Very clearly WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT both very much apply to this article, which is tagged for notability (without the crime, Dewani does not, indeed, meet WP:GNG albeit the crime is clearly terrible and regrettable.) but really needs to go for all three reasons. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:43, 24 June 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 11:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Grub Street Productions

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

Defunct TV production company fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP no significant coverage, reviews of its productions and articles about sitcoms with passing mentions, where at all. Created Frasier, which article mentions them as one of the production companies behind the series - which is pretty much WP:DUE weight. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Expekt.com

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

one of the first major online sports betting operators made me think this had a chance at being a notable company, but "one of" isn't too strong, and I can't find any sourcing to verify this. There's nothing to expand on from the Swedish article and sourcing in both languages are press releases and executive changes, nothing beyond run of the mill and certainly nothing to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • [25] This is a routine annoucement of a sale.
  • [ [26]] This one is a press-release.
  • [ [27]] A routine annoucement of being bought.
  • [ [28]] Another routine annoucement failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Being sold.
  • [ [29]] More routine coverage. The old owners will share 1.4billion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. monies.
I have no faith that any of these references constitute proper secondary sources that are in-depth, independent and significant, that satisfies WP:SIRS. The articles references equally poor. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 08:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 11:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dejavu (2022 film)

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

Dejavu (2022 film)

Unreleased film that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines. This article does not say anything about significant coverage of the film by independent sources, because there may not have been any. The two references are both only announcements of the film and the teaser, and so are not independent.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 cinemaexpress.com Announcement of film and its star and of the teaser No Yes Yes No
2 dtnext.in Announcement of film and of teaser No Yes Yes No

An article was created in article space, and was then moved correctly to draft space by User:Khgk. This copy was then created in article space, perhaps in order to game the system. Since there is already a draft, this version should be deleted as too soon. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Are you only assessing the article? You have the film listed on a few other websites, some articles like this one around. [30]. It won't be reviewed until after it's release. I don't see anything wrong with the article. The actors in it are known in that part of the world. Which suggests it should be very well advertised there. I am sure there will be decent sources around. I really don't know what the project have against brand new stub articles of late. Govvy ( talk) 07:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Does not have significant independent coverage (note that ads do not count as independent coverage) per WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Not enough signficant coverage to meey NFF yet. -- Ab207 ( talk) 05:22, 30 June 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. Borderng on keep, since the arguments for keeping have remained unadressed by the "delete" side. Sandstein 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Rauf Arifoghlu

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

Sent to draft by OneI, uncited material removed from article, material was banged back in by creator and plonked into mainspace in its original condition. Founder of redlinked newspaper and media group, runs redlinked magazine, given redlinked awards. No public service, no position held, founder of re-established party (founded in 1911) he then leaves. It's all very, well, marginal. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Alexandermcnabb, Rauf Arifoğlu was a candidate for the parliamentary elections several times. [31]; [32] He was imprisoned several times for his political activities. And he was recognized as a political prisoner by many international organizations. RFE/RL; [33]; [34]; [35]. His last parliamentary candidacy was controversial. All Azerbaijani media wrote about this right. The election in that region was cancelled BBC; [36], it was not repeated even after 2 years. (Google Translate) -- Samral ( talk) 09:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Fails GNG.-- Kadı Message 23:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    GNG ne demek? Samral ( talk) 17:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Samral, WP:GNG. Kadı Message 14:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Kadı bu yorumunuz bu şekliyle çok genel olmuyor mu? O kaidenin hangi ibaresine göre GNG değil. Yukarıdakı yorumumu okudunuz mu? Şahıs bir kaç kez siyasi sebeplerden hüküm giymiş. Cumhurbaşkanının uçağını kaçırmaya teşebbüsle suçlanmış ve haps edilmiş. Bu olaylarda hapse atılmış. Sovyetler Birliği zamanında da aynı şekilde. Amnesty International, HRW, Freedom House ve bir çok uluslararası kuruluş onu politik mahpus olarak tanımış. Kaç kez parlamentoda aday olmuş. Son seçimde bir çok kuruluşa göre millet vekili seçilse de YSK tarafından o bölgedeki seçim iptal edildi. Kendisi 30 yıldır gazeteci ve medya holding patronu. Kurucusu olduğu gazetenin yaşı Azerbaycanın bağımsızlık yaşından bile fazla. Siz şimdi bu şahsın GNG olmadığını mı söylüyorsunuz? Sizce böyle bir yorum objektif mi?-- Samral ( talk) 14:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Samral, If you text in English, I can reply to your question. Kadı Message 14:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    Burada Türkçe bildiğiniz, hatta Türkçe Vikimedi projelerinde hizmetli olduğunuz yazıyor. Samral ( talk) 13:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Samral, That's correct but we are in English Wikipedia now. Kadı Message 14:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Kadı, isn't your comment too general as it is? According to which phrase on that base, it is not GNG. Did you read my comment above? He was convicted several times for political reasons. He was charged with attempting to hijack the President's plane and was imprisoned. He was imprisoned in these events. It was the same in the time of the Soviet Union. Amnesty International, HRW, Freedom House and many international organizations recognized him as a political prisoner. How many times has he been a candidate in parliament? Although he was elected as a deputy according to many organizations in the last election, the election in that region was canceled by the YSK. He has been a journalist and media conglomerate boss for 30 years. The age of the newspaper he is the founder of is even more than the age of independence of Azerbaijan. Are you now saying that this person is not GNG? Do you think such a comment is objective? (Google Translate) Samral ( talk) 15:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    Did you read the policy? Kadı Message 16:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some more opinions about this article from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources in the article which address the subject "directly and in detail". Without a source analysis demonstrating why these sources do not constitute independent significant coverage, I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion from either Alexandermcnabb or Kadi based in GNG. Further the fact that we lack articles on certain content (such as awards or publications) is not an indicator for or against the notability of that content. Wikipedia lacks coverage on many notable topics, which is why we are constantly adding new content to the encyclopedia. Additionally, the awards for his work as a journalist in his native country indicate he passes criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Edition Axel Menges

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

Notability tagged since 2011, apparently written by one of the co-founders. Cites no sources, and the external links don't help support the content either. I don't see evidence of WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. asilvering ( talk) 04:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 24 June 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! 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Eidgah Adarsha Shiksha Niketon

Eidgah Adarsha Shiksha Niketon (  | talk | history | 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 fulfill WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Non notable school. — MdsShakil ( talk) 04:43, 24 June 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! 04:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Powervision TV

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

Whole article relied on a single reliable source. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan ( talk) 04:11, 24 June 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! 04:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Christophe Pradère

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

Autobiographical, no evidence that subject meets WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 04:10, 24 June 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. Looks like some work has been done during the AFD to improve sourcing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

EtonHouse International Education Group

AfDs for this article:
EtonHouse International Education Group (  | talk | history | 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 GNG and written to promote the subject Alphaonekannan ( talk) 04:09, 24 June 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) 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Valerie Caton

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant coverage. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar ( talk) 04:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Well, this was interesting. While WP:OUTCOMES tells us that, indeed, "Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable", Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom has over 200 subcategories, most of which are embassies and all of which, as per a dip in and out of a few of 'em, are bluelinked. On that basis, yes yes I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable. Not forgetting that WP:OUTCOMES isn't policy and consensus clearly favours the ambassador, I'm going keep here. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    • A few editors churning out huge amounts of junk articles that fail every and any inclusion criteria is not how we build concensus. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, and was built initially with no inclusion criteria at all, so the existence of articles in and of themselves shows neither consensus nor that such articles conform to inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no, ambassadors are not default notable, and we routinely delete articles on ambassadors that lack sourcing to meet GNG. GNG is not met here, and the argument that we should keep this undersourced article because of other articles that do not meet inclusion criteria is not a good one and should not be given any consideration at all. In the case of UK ambassadors to Finland we only have articles on about half of them. A large number of ambassadors are people who are notable for othere things, so the number of articles we have on ambassadors should not be used to show that ambassadors as a class are notable, and with about half of the UK ambassadors to Finland lacking articles, the argument that we should keep this article just because we have many other articles on ambassadors completely falls on its face. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Finland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Searches of Finnish media don't reveal much of relevance. There's an extremely short STT -supplied story in Helsingin Sanomat [38]. She's also mentioned in (and has a quote in) another story in Turun Sanomat, but is not the subject [39]. But that seems to be it. Curiously, there's a story about a British ambassador named Victoria Caton, but I can't figure out what is going on with the name. In any case, that story isn't much in GNG terms either: basically "she visited Turku and we asked for a few comments about Tony Blair. As for we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable, no. Ljleppan ( talk) 07:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, and WP:NPOL. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:32, 1 July 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! 04:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Tanim Hayat Khan Rajit

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

Sources cant be verified. There is no significant coverage. Violation of BLP Alphaonekannan ( talk) 04:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

All information sources are real. You can simply google Tanim Hayat Khan Rajit. This guy represented Bangladesh in international platform in Commonwealth Games Australia in 2018 and the interview with SBS Australia is a significant proof of that. Strong evidence as such and few more are good enough. Otherwise, I'm happy to reduce the content as you are saying is too much without backing up. Well, not every single information can be backed up. You need to understand the authenticity by looking at one or two. That's the professional judgment you are required to apply. this guy also performed internationally in USA and that evidence was provided too! I found a lot of celebrates wiki page with almost none or one reference. TAFEAN ( talk) 01:25, 30 June 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! 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

MBA Fakhro

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

Written to promote the company. Sources are not reliable Alphaonekannan ( talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

MBA Fakhro is a holding company, and it has more than 70 subsidiary companies.
https://mbafakhro.com/what-we-do/
Kindly avoid the deletion of MBA Fakhro page. Arun Biju ( talk) 04:36, 24 June 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) Jumpytoo Talk 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Carol Lee

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

Unable to find any significant independent coverage. – Ploni ( talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator: Her 2016 exhibit was reviewed in the SCMP, which is probably significant enough to meet WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 03:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu (1989 film)

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu (1989 film) (  | talk | history | 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 reliable sources, cannot find reviews at The Indian Express archives [40] or Kalki [41]. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

H Now Entertainment

H Now Entertainment (  | talk | history | 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 entertainment channel. Fails WP:ORG. AHatd ( talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Gabe Noel

Gabe Noel (  | talk | history | 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 as there is a lack of in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. An internet search yields very little, even when using his full given name. He has worked with notable artists, but this does not make him notable himself. If suitable sources are found, I'd be happy to retract. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Those were the last performances by Austin Peralta before his death. Gabe still walks among the living, but perhaps not among the notable. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I know, I just couldn't resist the syntax/grammar... ;) Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - In the world of AfDs for musicians, we occasionally see journeymen support musicians like this and it can be unfortunate. Mr. Noel has indeed worked with a lot of notable musicians, behind the scenes as a songwriter, arranger, backing band member, etc. ( [42]) If he has made an honest living in this fashion, kudos to him. But for his article here, notability is not inherited from the famous people he has backed. I can find nothing reliable and significant on him and his career in their own right, and most of his visibility is only in the credits for other people's works. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Margaret Kofela

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Merina Joe

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Alisha Donga

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Cathy Aihunu

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. However if someone thinks that sourced information should be discussed elsewhere, I'm happy to provide the text for merger/attribution. Star Mississippi 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dana Gordon

AfDs for this article:
Dana Gordon (  | talk | history | 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 painting has absolutely no notability for a stand-alone article at WP. The sources only cite references that back generalized comments about the artist; not the actual painting. Any analytical content about the painting is purely "personal opinion" or "original research". The section Formal qualities have no references to back any claims. The section Purpose is pure speculation; and references cited do not back any claims for notable inclusion but mere mention of the artist, not the subject. The section Background is once again merely a personal opinionated take on the painting with absolutely no sources to back claims, again. This painting is of no significance and if there is anything to be mentioned about it, the content could easily merge with the artist's page. However, without sources to back any of the claims in this article, I can't see it being mentioned for any plausible reason. Maineartists ( talk) 01:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Delete An engine search rendered no relevant or notable sources that review, discuss, analyze or even mention the painting other than what has been created in this article at WP and Wiki-linked. No historical significance or background for inclusion can be found in any source that would constitute inclusion. Maineartists ( talk) 01:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In the previous AfD for this article, I objected to deletion, and so did one other contributor. The article was kept. That didn't mean that I thought the article is any good: It's terrible. None of the online sources cited in the article mention the painting. The article if full of outright nonsense: "By 1972, Neel was nearing the end of her life..." Not true, she died 12 years later, in 1984. "Dana Gordon depicts an everyday man, presumably of middle or lower class. " Dana Gordon is a painter and writer, born in 1944. The article claims that the work is owned by the Neel Estate, but that failed verification: [43] The entire article is WP:OR, and none of it appears to be supported by RS. One day, it may be possible to write a properly sourced article, but the current version must be entirely rewritten or deleted. Vexations ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep As I said before - Strong painting by Alice Neel who had a major retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A portrait of an important writer and artist who has been a prolific essayist and art critic in recent years... Modernist ( talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Modernist I think Alice Neel is one of the best and most important American modern painters, and I'd love it if we had articles on many of her paintings, but: Is there anything in this article that you think can be kept? Vexations ( talk) 11:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Modernist That didn't hold water then, and it won't hold water now. Personal opinion does not warrant an article. I did read the article 3 times before nominating it for AfD. The article is about Dana Gordon the artist, and doesn't even mention the painting. As well: online sources regarding the "retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art" do not mention this painting. There is no significant or relevant sources that back your claim of its importance. Maineartists ( talk) 12:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      Also, the painting wasn't in the MET retrospective. [45] Do we know where it is? I've searched auction records, but can't find it. Vexations ( talk) 12:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      We do not. The article only speculates: "... the painting was most likely commissioned by the man for his own personal ownership, before being handed over to the Alice Neel Estate." The inline citations do not even back this claim. Maineartists ( talk) 12:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Frankly, Dana Gordon is notable as an artist and writer. The article should reflect that and engage his complex biography...needs some competent editorial work. See this link... [46]... Modernist ( talk) 13:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
1. The article is not about Dana Gordon. 2. "I think" is not a reason for inclusion. Supply references to back your claim. 3. The article needs references. End of story. Maineartists ( talk) Maineartists ( talk) 13:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
What on earth does this link have to do with the painting by Alice Neel? The segment on CBS Sunday Morning - "Artist Alice Neel, a collector of souls" last year never mentioned this painting; yet talked about her vast production of portraits. I'm not sure you understand how articles at WP actually work. Dana Gordon is not notable as an artist or writer. Otherwise, he would have his own article at WP. But that is completely beside the point. There is not one source that makes this painting (or its artist) notable. The link you provided is the artist's own website. The reference itself is mere promotional and not even a source for this painting or its article. Maineartists ( talk) 02:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The painting itself lacks significant coverage in independent sources. The critical commentary on the painting is all original research. Clearly fails WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I understand Modernist's frustration since Alice Neel is an exceptionally important artist, and Dana Gordon an interesting artist and writer. However, if I'm not mistaken, the article is not about Gordon, it's about a portrait of Gordon, and the painting itself is not notable. It does seem like WP:OR, and that there significant coverage of the painting does not exist (at least not yet). If sources on the painting can be found, I'm happy to change my !vote, or if enough sources on Gordon himself can be found to create a stand alone article on him, then the painting can be included in that article. At this time it does not meet WP:GNG. Netherzone ( talk) 20:03, 2 July 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. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in the discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Math Suks

Math Suks (  | talk | history | 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:NSONG. Didn't chart, wasn't reviewed independently of the album, only got brief attention from one math journal and a roast on Colbert. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mathematics. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the album. The song comes up with scattered mentions or reviews of the album in total, nothing for the song in particular. For all we have here, it could just be transposed into a section in the article about the album. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article in Cincinnati Enquirer [47], Orlando Sentinel [48] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect for now, as the article is in terrible shape, and even its respective album article has hardly any prose. The current article has almost no substance - I started trimming out the overly wordy, flowery language, but stopped when I realized I'd trim it down to almost nothing if I kept going. I have no prejudice towards someone spinning it back out if someone decides to actually write a substantive article, as it's name did seem to garner some coverage. But unless someone does a massive rewrite/expansion in the coming days, the spin out isn't currently warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Why is the language "overly wordy, flowery"? The article is not an artistic review. It is about the vision of math conveyed by the song and the reaction of math teachers to it.-- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article, upon my first read of it, read as:
Consistent with its stated theme, the song lyrics are largely an emotional catharsis; mathematical terms are used only in a very superficial way. Presumably for that reason, the song seems to have little appeal to mathematicians, and even less to mathematics teachers.
This framing is insane for what this is. It's a guy with a guitar grumbling about math being hard, which mathematicians didn't like. There's way more concise (and better) ways to convey that message. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:00, 24 June 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_24&oldid=1096144569"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE