Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 01 October 03 >

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. Maybe some of these sources brought up in this AFD discussion could find their way into the article now. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Josho Pat Phelan

Josho Pat Phelan (  | talk | history | 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 biographical article of a religious leader does not demonstrate why she has notability in the broader context of Buddhism in the United States. Kansan ( talk) 22:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Lord Glamis

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

No apparent notability. The article reads like a genealogical entry, presumably because there is not much else to say. It appears that the article exists solely because he is a great-grandfather of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, but that is not a good enough reason. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Charlotte Lyon-Bowes, Lady Glamis

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

No indication of nobility. The article is no more than a genealogical entry, as there is nothing else to say about the subject but their spouse and children. The article apparently exists solely because the subject is a great-grandparent of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. See WP:INVALIDBIO. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Strong consensus established for keeping this article with no opposing views. Closing per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 08:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Naukar (1943 film)

Naukar (1943 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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG with no sources except one trivial mention. Also couldn't find any sources google-wise, but the search is cluttered with various other topics. There is most likely reliable sources out there, but I can't find them, and it definitely isn't fit for Wikipedia in its uncited state. VTVL ( talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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! 07:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Golam Mustofa

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

Inflated article created by an editor for payment. Just name checked in sources, even most of them are made-up (press releases/paid for articles which newspapers never maintain in their archives - that's why they are citing pictures - smart work). ROTM awards, fails WP:SIGCOV. Michalis Andreou ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 21:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Litmus (band)

Litmus (band) (  | talk | history | 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:BAND and WP:GNG. The article was undeleted at WP:REFUND per an IPv6 user's request, where the reasoning (This page was accurate and not offensive I do not know why it was removed) had nothing to due with the original WP:PROD reason. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Seems to meet WP:BAND as there's 2 albums released on an indie label that in itself is notable and represents other notable artists. Article could sure use some love though. Mr.weedle ( talk) 05:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Michael Jacobs (economist)

Michael Jacobs (economist) (  | talk | history | 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 set up this discussion without logging in and now I've created an account to ensure it gets full consideration. I have not edited before so I apologise if I have not got the form quite right. I use Wikipedia often and am often moved to edit but have never done so. In this case, I have (small) knowledge of the subject. I am not sure if it is correct to delete but am not sure what other action might be appropriate so I will be be bold (which I can see is a principle at Wikipedia) and let others judge. Essentially, I know that the subject was in charge of the staff at the Fabian Society (of which I am a member, society not staff) at the beginning of the century, but I am not aware that he is an economist. I do not wish to call anyone's judgement into question, but it is quite clear that the article has been set up by someone who may be known to, or may actually be, the subject (I understand that this allegation may be bad form at Wikipedia but it seems a reasonable inference). @Shardadean seems to not be a signed-in editor and seems to have created all the substantive content. Some of the supporting citations refer directly to the subject's own website. Some of the reference are peculiar and again unevidenced (e.g. Ref 13 claims that the subject in effect set up the highly notable Stern Report but provides no evidence other than a link to the Stern Report itself). The website, and therefore the article ('economist' 'professor'), does not reflect the subject's status as what appears to be an adjunct scholar at Sheffield University and formerly a visiting professor (i.e not a member of staff) elsewhere. There is no reference to a professorial chair or appointment anywhere. It provides no evidence that the subject is an economist (e.g. an economics degree?). It may be that as a former adviser to a prime minister the subject should be in Wikipedia, I am not sure, but the present content is both un-evidenced and misleading at respective points and so it would seem to me better to delete the article and let it start anew organically. As my final contribution here (I have made a number of edits already!) I see that WP:COI may be the case here. For example, many of the key paragraphs (including the first few) seem to be an unreferenced description of a book (in effect a self-review). I leave it to other editors to decide what should happen with this page, but the article does look hopelessly compromised. My apologies if I am wrong. Richard3444 ( talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I will comment on other pages as appropriate now that I have started here! Richard3444 ( talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • comment @Richard3444 thank you for your contribution and question here. This is a clear case where a discussion should be held on how the subject should be represented on Wikipedia and whether material should be removed from the article that is biased and does not follow WP:NPOV. However, the subject at hand is whether the article should be deleted and not whether it should be rewritten and re-organized (which it probably should). To decide upon deletion, we have to identify whether the subject has made significant contributions / impact as an academic or author to be of general interest and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. To decide this we rely on guidelines such as WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF. Note that even if the article is biased and written by a person with WP:COI, it would indicate a rewrite or even WP:TNT but not necessarily a deletion of the article which needs to be decided separately. Currently, it seems the best argument for notability is the subjects work as an author, I find at least two book reviews which are generally sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR: [1] [2]. -- hroest 15:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve: even if created by someone connected to the subject, the subject seems to be often cited in British publications and appears to be notable. -- Milowent • has spoken 16:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This academic is a published full professor [3] not an adjunct. At least two of his books have received reviews. He meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR and may also meet WP:NACADEMIC as his work is widely cited by others [4]. An online WP:BEFORE search indicates that he is often called upon as a subject expert and government advisor in economics. The article can be improved, but should not be deleted. Note to Richard3444: I understand that you made this nomination in good faith, however it is unusual for a new editor's first edit to be an AfD nomination. It takes a while (in my case a few years) to fully understand the criteria for notability per Wikipedia's guidelines and all of its complexities and subtleties. Netherzone ( talk) 16:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nominator: Thanks very much indeed for all of these comments @netherzone and @Milowent. I think it's clear I've started by biting off more than I can chew here. I've read your comments and I'll learn from them, do be sure of that. I've carried out simple edits for a while without signing in, but now I've done the latter I've clearly got a lot to learn re: the WP policies. I don't think I can withdraw the proposal but it's obvious to me now that it would be best if I used this article to practice edit and improve it a bit. As I understand it, an uninvolved editor will close and keep. Now I see your points, it's obvious the subject is WP:GNG (learning...). Re: full professor. Tbh, that was what caught my eye in the first place. I do not work in academia but I do have a (slightly ageing) doctorate and my recollection is that professorial fellows are senior adjuncts usually funded through project grant funding (e.g ESRC). Often, the project is well enough established to bring in senior professionals from outside academia who do not have the academic background to qualify for a tenured post. It's not a slight on the individual, and some departments use the facility more than others. The tenured professors I know today often draw attention to the lack of academic publications; i.e. a practical book or two on an applied subject would not normally make someone competitive for a chair or personal chair unless they had a strong record of high value academic papers. Regardless, I completely take your points about WP and I'm really very grateful for you taking the time. I'll keep it simple for a while..... best wishes, and thanks again Richard3444 ( talk) 17:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hello @ Richard3444, and thanks for your note. I'm in the U.S. where Professorial Fellow may have a different meaning here than in the UK. I did a quick search for Professorial Fellow in UK, and found this on the Oxford University website: "Professorial Fellows are the holders of Statutory Chairs, the most senior professorships in the University. They are all members of the College’s Governing Body." [5] Sheffield may have a different definition than Oxford, our article, Academic ranks in the United Kingdom lists Professorial Fellows as those on a research rather than teaching career path. Netherzone ( talk) 16:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think we should be careful about definitions of job titles, which may be different at different universities in the same country, or even between different departments at the same university. Also Oxford and Cambridge are often different from other British universities. In this case I don't think it really matters whether the subject is a full-time professor with a standard career path or not. He seems to have enough reviewed books and highly-cited papers to be notable. And, Richard3444, please continue to be bold. As long as you are prepared to show your working nobody should admonish you for it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Shorea cara

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

This is an unpublished species name; it doesn't have the sourcing presumed by WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Article was created by a bot from a record in the IUCN database. The IUCN record has been deleted. Presumably the plants in nature reserve Leuweung Sancang can be identified to a published species, but it is now impossible to know what that is (if IUCN had preserved their record as some form of redirect, identification could be possible). Plantdrew ( talk) 20:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, per IUCN deletion. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 23:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Huntington Beach (rate center)

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

this is the only article on Wikipedia about a particular rate center. Do we need this? I think not. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Onselling of sperm

Onselling of sperm (  | talk | history | 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 why this should be its own article. This article is too UK-specific and mostly unsourced and should be deleted as it stands. QueenofBithynia ( talk) 20:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Redundant. The page meets speedy deletion criteria WP:A1 and so this AFD is redundant and unnecessary. Feel free to reopen if for some reason the speedy gets declined, but I see no reason why that would happen. (non-admin closure) Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 20:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

St Stephen's High School, Pathanapuram

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

St Stephen's High School, Pathanapuram St Stephen's Higher Secondary Pathanapuram

Two sub-stubs for what appears to be one school that do not provide any indication of general notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Narendra Modi. Valid ATD that solves to the nomination issues. Star Mississippi 02:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Heeraben Modi

Heeraben Modi (  | talk | history | 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 on Wikipedia is not inherited; all coverage this person has received in reliable sources is a consequence of, and relates to, her relationship to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC) For the record, I'm fine with a redirect, and would prefer that to outright deletion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thousands of similar sources with trivial and/or non-independent coverage can be found on a web/news search but that does not help establish notability under WP:GNG. And a Google Book search spits out only sources in the first category along with this self-published book of images of the Modis "taken from the internet". Abecedare ( talk) 22:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It looks like the article has basically been rewritten and editors who have commented beieve it now meets Wikipedia's standards. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Cassie Cage

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

Article fails WP:GNG and should probably be merged to the list of characters. The only WP:SIGCOV I have found is a single article here, everything else is a trivial mention or from a situational source. There were two things about her that drew some slight attention, one is a controversy her design being similar to a MMA fighter that quickly was ignored, another was her selfie fatality that was picked up upon its announcement and then forgotten about. None indicate enduring notability for the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep.While the article could use some improvement (particularly the Other media section's mentions of her comic book appearances) when it comes to references, I think there's a good amount of referencing (and from reliable sources, obviously) in the rest of the sections. So don't think it fails GNG. And calling "everything else" a trivial mention seems reductionist.
On the note of the selfie fatality, I'm pretty sure even if "forgotten about", WP:NTEMP should apply here. While yes, I think it's true that it hasn't been covered today in the same way it was back in 2015, it's also true that this was a fatality from the 2015 game, and there's been the release of MK11 release since then. But.. I did find this 2019 source that mentions the selfie fatality. So that should probably quell any such "forgotten about" concerns about her fatality. The 2019 source also brings up things that would be good to include in her Development/Design section (which I'll be working on shortly).
On the Felice Herrig (MMA fighter design controversy) note, I don't see the issue? It's relating to her design and while it seems like there's been no legal development in that situation, I really don't think that just because it was "ignored" makes it any less relevant for inclusion in the appropriate Design section? Regardless, I added info to the article so that it now includes Herrig stating her camp was looking into legal options and that no action developed from that.
Way more options exist for this than deleting, so I'm currently looking for other ways to improve the article but I think this is a strong Keep. Thanks for the Game Informer reference. Will be using it to add to this article. Soulbust ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
In response to the articles about the selfie fatality and her other fatalities, this quote from WP:GNG will suffice: Not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
As for the MMA controversy, the lack of any development suggests it was clickbait journalism at best. This is not a Kadabra situation in which a lawsuit was actually filed and noted on Wikinews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Seems pessimistic; the lack of any development more probably suggests Herrig's camp opted not to follow through on legal action. Not following through on that obviously wouldn't get news coverage, because it would be making a story out of literally no ocurrence. While I think VG journalism is prone to clickbait, the headlines covering this particular situation don't read as clickbait (1: MMA Star Says Mortal Kombat Likeness "Cannot Be A Coincidence"; 2: Felice Herrig: I think Cassie Cage from "Mortal Kombat" is 100% me, 3:UFC's Felice Herrig Talks About Comparison With Mortal Kombat X's Cassie Cage, 4: Felice Herrig's camp looking into possible legal action against Mortal Kombat developer). They read as pretty good encapsulations of the situation as it happened. Soulbust ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Also nice highlight of "minor news stories", but it seems subjective. It's also confusing thinking. Even if you count all of the sources covering the fatality (of which there is a high amount) as minor, wouldn't the shear amount of them show a support of its notability? And then we're just talking about the fatality itself. The character herself has even greater amounts of coverage. I think the fatality is just one component of her character that was positively received. Soulbust ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Also looks like there is some sort of litmus test being conducted with articles on Sektor, Skarlet, and Cyrax being merged, with Nightwolf being kept as per no consensus, and Rain currently pending. I'd probably be remiss to not mention that Cassie probably has an inherent greater notability than those characters as per being the main protagonist of MKX. But, that's irrelevant imo, because the sourcing on this article helps support notability regardless of her function as that game's main protag. Will continue to help improve article over the coming days. Soulbust ( talk) 22:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Will continue to edit the article later. I've added reliable, relevant sourcing + context. And in addition, I've also removed any sourcing that's been tagged as unreliable as per the VG WikiProject. Where needed/applicable, I've replaced it with reliable sourcing. What I've noticed is that this article was just severely out-of-date, or at least much more out-of-date than I previously thought. Although her appearance in MK11 was added back in 2019, the relevant design and gameplay changes, as well as reception regarding her MK11 appearance was not added. Again, will continue to make changes to this article later today/this week. Soulbust ( talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - Bulk of the content seems to be listicles and cherry-picked trivial mentions. What remains when all the gunk is removed can probably easily fit on the character list until such a time when more substantial sources can be provided. TTN ( talk) 22:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Bulk of what content? Listicles are only included in the Reception section, and in pretty obvious situations (i.e. a publication calling Cassie nth best MK character). "Cherry-picked" is also a pretty interesting comment? Where is that coming from? How is any of it cherry-picked? I'm trying to contribute in a way that gives readers a good as possible understanding of the character's design history, gameplay features, etc. (info any other VG character article would include). Very interested, then, to get a better understanding as to what exactly is "cherry-picked trivial mentions." Because just saying that without giving context seems unhelpful here. And over the past day or so I've added more substantial content and sourcing and am still in the process of doing so. Soulbust ( talk) 23:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Igala people. Draftification is reasonable if someone wants to work on the draft, but otherwise it's just slow deletion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Igalamela Kingmakers

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

Does not meet GNG or any SNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Outskirts Press

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

Most of the sources used in the article are press releases and paid-for articles. Searching on google, there are barely any reliable sources discussing the company, except for more PR. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 15:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC) note: a previous AfD happened under a differente title, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outskirts press. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 15:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the nomination states, this article came to AFD under a slightly different title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outskirts press.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep
In the interest of full disclosure, I am the CEO of Outskirts Press.  However, having been an active part of the evolving self-publishing field for the last 20 years, I hope my thoughts on this topic have some value here.
According to the official and widely recognized whois.com registration record, OutskirtsPress.com has been a participant in the self-publishing field since September 2002, which is longer than many of the self-publishing companies listed in Wikipedia’s VTE self-publishing template including Blurb, FastPencil, Notion Press, FriesensPress, Self Publish Be Happy, Smashwords, and Wattpad.
While it’s true Outskirts Press has three PRWeb links listed as reference sources, there are more links from legitimately recognized sources, including two articles from The Denver Business Journal, Inc. Magazine, The Globe and Mail, and Reuters.  A review of the companies listed in Wikipedia’s self-publishing template reveals that the number of outside-source reference articles on most of their pages is on par with the number shown on the Outskirts Press page (once sources considered too closely associated with the subject have been removed).  Which indicates that we are at least as relevant to the self-publishing field as they are.
Often in the self-publishing industry the success of a publisher is defined not by its own newsworthy successes but by that of its authors.  Outskirts Press has been a significant contributor to the self-publishing field for 20 years; publishing over 24,000 books during that time (as indicated by the Book Depository).  Our authors have gone on to win hundreds of awards, have movies made from their books, make appearances on TV and countless other amazing accomplishments—all made possible by Outskirts Press. As such, it seems like our inclusion in Wikipedia’s effort to provide a compendium of knowledge on the evolving field of self-publishing is more than appropriate.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in this conversation and I would be happy to provide any information you require in your evaluation process.~~~ JMSdesign ( talk) 22:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing in terms of significant coverage apart from mentions from the Robert Pickton stuff, and that coverage really focuses on Pickton. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 17:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SERIESA. The scandal about Pickton's book should go in the article about him. This is otherwise promotional and the company doesn't generate nearly enough press to be notable, and then on top of that there's COI. FalconK ( talk) 22:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Exodus (Polish band)

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

WP:NBAND. Poorly cited article, does not appear notable. 162 etc. ( talk) 16:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Added two Polish sources from pl.wp. This deletion discussion can now be closed as badly researched. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Adding a tag or two [18] does nothing to address the lack of notability. WP:NBAND lists twelve criteria, and this band does not appear to meet any of them. 162 etc. ( talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply

GihonT

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

This article would appear to be a confused concatenation of various of Spotify and YouTube links. Is this young musical artist from Pakistan or from Indonesia? Repeatedly deleted (including under Draft:GihonT. At the risk of pointness WP:AFD discussion started, if only to WP:SALT it from recreation. Despite WP:INVOLVED, I am minded to close this as a speedy delete, and WP:REVDEL pretty much everything about it. User:Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 11:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep the links from Spotify and Youtube had the sole purpose to reference the songs that were provided in the discography, I am sure the 20 other sources provided are reliable enough. As for the nationality that I provided, this source says that his parents are from Indonesia, but he was born in Pakistan and has full Indonesian citizenship, hence he is Indonesia. Gtgamer79 ( talk) 11:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Liam Driscoll

Liam Driscoll (  | talk | history | 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 assertion of notability in the article; subject is a footballer with an unremarkable youth and amateur career. Currently, the only reference is a loan announcement in local news source Somerset Live. The only other source that I can find is a loan offer rumour in local tabloid BerkshireLive; such sources are usually not seen as evidence of notability in an AfD. Subject doesn't currently meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Giulio Camarlinghi

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

De-PRODded by Das osmnezz with the rationale: "has Italian sources and played for fully pro Italian Serie C which is regarded as one of best third tiers worldwide and an Italian Serie B team which is regarded as one of best second tiers worldwide and has ongoing career"

The article previously barely scraped by old, deprecated NFOOTY guidelines because Camarlinghi made one appearance in the third-tier, professional Serie C. He has not played in the Serie B. A web search didn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV. The article would seem to fail WP:GNG. Robby.is.on ( talk) 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

ProfitKey International

ProfitKey International (  | talk | history | 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 isn't established through the article, only sources I could find outside of Wikipedia and mirrors are CrunchBase, LinkedIn, etc. DizzyTheMan ( talk) 13:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage of note either. Doesn't seem notable. Blue Edits ( talk) 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Poison (German band)

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

German band fails WP:BAND, unlike the American band. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Support, per nom. Not notable -- FMSky ( talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 15:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Peter Aman

Peter Aman (  | talk | history | 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 political figure notable only as a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and a candidate must either (a) demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or (b) show a credible reason why his candidacy should be seen as much more special than most other people's candidacies. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (his own LinkedIn, the county elections office) with the purely run of the mill volume and depth local coverage that any mayoral candidate would merely be expected to have in their local media. Nothing here is "inherently" notable at all. Bearcat ( talk) 13:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Nila (character)

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

Fictional character with just one film appearance ( 2.0 (film)). Does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks independent coverage in reliable sources including enough real-world/out-of-universe perspective. Most of the content is sourced from interviews/primary sources which do not establish notability.

Stand-alone article is not warranted in any case per WP:NOPAGE as it can be covered in the film article. Blazin777 ( talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello @ Blazin777:, I understand your point that only one film of the character made you feel that the it is not suitable of having a Wikipedia page. But the fact is it is part of a film series and it may significantly have a future apperance in the project as part of the film series/cinematic universe. Also may I know why the Appearance part of the song is removed from the page (since that added more importantance to the character in connection with the protagonist)
Please provide your view and rationale.
Thank you. 456legend( talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not enough to show the character is notable. Need to have secondary sources that are focused on the character, not the people playing that character. Has only appeared in one film. Not enough to show independent notability. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ravensfire: okay fine sir. I understood the reason. Delete it. I have no points to put in further. Thank you

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 20:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

BrandX.com

BrandX.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)

Company which fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, the only coverage available consists of directory listings and routine announcements in unreliable trade publications. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Jordan Pettigrew

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

WP:N. He hasn't played at a fully-professional level in Scotland - the highest league level he has played in is Scottish League Two, the fourth tier of the Scottish football league system. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry to get off topic, but I don't get involved in deletion discussions very often. How can a major professional sport not have a guideline for deciding who or what is notable? This is absurd. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
It all comes under SPORTCRIT and BASIC now, but I don't know the ins and outs of why that decision was made. GiantSnowman could possibly point you in the right direction. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 16:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, NFOOTBALL has been abolished following a RFC. Giant Snowman 09:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Andrei Bondar

Andrei Bondar (  | talk | history | 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. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 TT me 10:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Kirill Korepov

Kirill Korepov (  | talk | history | 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. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 TT me 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Vladislav Belyayev

Vladislav Belyayev (  | talk | history | 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. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 TT me 10:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Ivan Mishukov (footballer)

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

Another semi-pro footballer with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC provided. Searches of "Иван Мишуков" (including in conjunction with "Торпедо", his current club) in multiple search engines failed to yield even one instance of significant coverage. Closest thing is Live Journal, which can be dismissed as it's a social media site so is excluded from WP:RS. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Nikita Gloydman

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

Semi-pro with no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Searches of "Никита Глойдман" in multiple search engines did not yield any significant coverage. Best source I can find is Tula Sport which is both local and trivial. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Aleksei Usanov

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

Semi-pro footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Sent to draft by User:Onel5969 but moved back with no significant improvement. Would have failed the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline as well.

Russian searches in Google News and DDG yielded nothing useful. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Filipp Marayev

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

PROD rationale by User:Jogurney Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Contested with comment has Russian sources and played in fully pro Russian third tier and has ongoing career which is a reference to the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, which has been redundant for several months now. Interestingly, the Russian third tier was removed from WP:FPL after strong consensus so the PROD removal comment is wrong on at least two counts. The best sources on him are the local news articles Online Vologda and Vologda Poisk but neither article is substantial in terms of coverage. Routine injury and transfer announcements are almost always dismissed at football AfDs. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Jota Agostinho

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

Played one professional game then played as an amateur for the rest of his career. No luck finding anything under "Jota Agostinho" and searching "Jota" in conjunction with the clubs that he played for doesn't yield anything useful either. Plenty of coverage on similarly-named players like Jota (footballer, born 1999), Jota Gonçalves and Diogo Jota but nothing about this one. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG as far as I can see. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Smiling Friends. ✗ plicit 11:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Desmond's Big Day Out

Desmond's Big Day Out (  | talk | history | 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 cannot see in any way how this episode is notable. Bubbleblabber.com is an unreliable source (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Blood, Old Souls) and the Collider review could probably easily fit into the main Smiling Friends article. I'd suggest a redirect to the main series article. wizzito | say hello! 08:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Raise5

Raise5 (  | talk | history | 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 meeting WP:GNG. The sources are scarce, self-referencing is too heavy (50% references go to raise5 website). Several brief mentions in huffpost are not enough too. Assirian cat ( talk) 10:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

raise5 website now appears to be of another company. its says: Raise5.com is a data-driven platform which provides better online shopping experience. The wikipedia page says: Raise5 is an organization that allows individuals and groups to fundraise for charities and non-profits through micro-volunteering. Assirian cat ( talk) 10:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Looking at Wayback machine, the website of the Raise5 described in this article was still showing people offering services until mid 2017, when it disappeared, then a distinct shopping site with a different logo commenced with their website in April 2019. The former start-up won a " Screw Business As Usual" start-up competition in 2012, rewarded by an African trip the following year with Richard Branson [19], but I don't think that or the associated start-up publicity is evidence of attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Model-Glue

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

Not a notable framework by any means. Found one mention on Google Books (which was written by its creators) and a single TechRepublic article from 2006. Lacks independent, significant coverage. Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete the notability is not established. Searching for reliable sources will not help. -- Assirian cat ( talk) 10:14, 25 September 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! 07:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK#4. ✗ plicit 23:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Somashekhar SP

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

My BFORE search found ,This doctor does not satisfy WP:GNG. and it is an advertisement more than an article. Maximum references used are self published. NextStepfor ( talk) 07:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) — NextStepfor ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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) 10:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Athanasios Raptis

Athanasios Raptis (  | talk | history | 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 more than a couple namechecks in match reports, fails GNG. Dr. Duh  🩺 ( talk) 06:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

BPM Model School

BPM Model 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)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that were present were either primary or school/college databases. A previous PROD was contested. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 03:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Rodney Coates

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

American football player that does not meet WP:GNG. He is undrafted and though he's been signed by the Seahawks, he has yet to play a single NFL game. The coverage that exists is routine (e.g. game reports from his time at West Florida) and not sustained, in-depth coverage of Coates. Pichpich ( talk) 01:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Keep - Doesn't meet WP:GNG Couldn't find any sources either, and the source used is also a trivial mention that dissatisfies WP:SPORTCRIT Keep per the sources below VTVL ( talk) 04:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 03:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Detention (2003 film)

Detention (2003 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)

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found only one review on Rotten Tomatoes. Needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. The Film Creator ( talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Tinci Materials

Tinci Materials (  | talk | history | 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 company. Sources cited are routine business reporting and passing mentions. Search finds only more of the same, as well as the usual social media, directory, etc. listings, nothing even approaching RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 05:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    2. "Tinci Materials analyst reports". Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.

      This search page lists a large number of analyst reports about Tinci Materials.

      From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

      There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

    3. Han, Chen 韩晨 (2021-08-23). "天赐材料: 一体化布局降本增利，正极产能稳步扩张" [Tianci Materials: Integrated layout reduces costs and increases profits, and cathode production capacity expands steadily] (PDF). Southwest Securities 西南证券 (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.

      The analyst report notes from Google Translate: "Profit forecast and investment advice. The company's electrolyte will continue to maintain rapid growth, while the production capacity reserves are abundant, The cathode material business will become a new growth point for the business in the long run, optimize the company's product structure, and further enhance the company's profitability. The compound growth rate of the company's total revenue in the next three years is 54%. Considering the company's leading electrolyte status, and the future development of the company's new business, we give the company 80 times PE in 2021, the target price is 167.20 yuan. Initial coverage with a "buy" rating. Risk warning: the risk of the company's production capacity not being released as scheduled ..."

    4. "天賜材料增長勁 大行齊唱好" [Strong growth of Tinci Materials, big banks sing in unison that it is good]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). 2021-08-27. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Tinci Materials (002709.SZ), the world's largest electrolyte manufacturer, reported stronger than expected results in the first half of the year, and continued to maintain high growth in its guidance for the third quarter. At the same time, it has received orders from many major manufacturers. After the results were announced, major banks worked together to hold and sing in unison that it is good. Tianci Materials was established in 2000 and entered the lithium ion electrolyte business in 2005. It is the largest electrolyte supplier of the battery leader CATL (300750.SZ), and is also the biggest competitor of CATL"

    5. "西南证券给予天赐材料买入评级，高毛利水平延续，关注22H2产能释放" [Southwest Securities gives Tianci Materials a buy rating, the high gross profit level continues, focusing on the release of production capacity in 22H2]. National Business Daily (in Chinese). 2022-09-02. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Southwest Securities released a research report on September 2, saying that it gave Tianci Materials (002709.SZ, latest price: 47.14 yuan) a buy rating. The reasons for the rating mainly include: 1) The high gross profit level of electrolytes continues; 2) The expansion of iron phosphate production has accelerated, and sales have increased significantly; 3) The prices of daily chemical materials and special chemical raw materials have risen, and the gross profit margin has been under pressure. Risk warning: The production capacity is less than expected, the downstream demand is less than expected, the industry overcapacity leads to intensified market competition, and policy risks."

    6. Peng, Guangchun 彭广春 (2022-01-21). "天赐材料(002709)：盈利持续高企 一体化+新一代锂盐巩固竞争优势" [Tinci Materials (002709): Continued high profitability, integration + a new generation of lithium salts to consolidate competitive advantages] (in Chinese). Huachuang Securities [ zh. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Sina Corporation.

      The analyst report notes: "Considering that the company is a global electrolyte leader, and the production capacity of the key additive lithium hexafluorophosphate continues to be released and self-supplied, the company's performance is expected to increase significantly. Considering the valuation of comparable companies, we give the company 40 times PE in 2022, corresponding to the target price of 196.8 yuan, and maintain the "strong push" rating. Risk warning: global sales of new energy vehicles are lower than expected, and electrolyte prices have fallen."

    7. Barns, Greg (June–July 2019). "Oz Minerals earns in from Cassini Resources at West Musgrave Project". Resource World Magazine. Vol. 17, no. 4. p. 33. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "But not only has Cassini Resources attracted OZ Minerals to the West Musgrave Project, it also now has on its books Hong Kong-based Tinci (HK) Limited, a 100% subsidiary of Guangzhou Tinci Materials Technology. Tinci Materials is one of China's largest lithium-ion battery electrolyte manufacturers and is currently conducting a feasibility study for the production of high-quality nickel sulphate from nickel sulphide concentrate for the battery industry. Tinci participated in a recent AUD $7M placement to Asian investors."

    8. Tang, Shihua (2021-08-24). Laine, Emmi; Xiao, Yi (eds.). "China's Tinci Surges to All-Time High After USD813 Million Plan to Hike Battery Materials Output". Yicai Global. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.

      The article notes: "Tinci is a big provider of lithium hexafluorophosphate, a core material of battery electrolytes. ... Tinci had a 32 percent market share of battery electrolytes in China, and a 20 percent market share in the world as of December 2020, according to public information. The company's capacity was 106,000 tons of lithium-ion battery electrolytes, but it was expanding it by 350,000 tons at that time."

    9. Liu, Xing 刘幸; Chen, Youzi 陈忧子 (2021-11-13). Wu, 吴诗航 Shihang (ed.). "穗7家企业入选"全国制造业单项冠军"名单" [Seven companies from Guangzhou were selected into the list of "National Manufacturing Individual Champions"]. Guangzhou Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-20. Retrieved 2022-09-26 – via Nanfang Daily.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Guangzhou Tinci High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. is the only company at home and abroad with the entire industry chain of lithium-ion battery electrolyte, the only designated supplier of Tesla in the world, and the main supplier of electrolyte in the Ningde era. Its products are exported to South Korea, Japan, and the United States. and many other countries. Last year, Tinci Materials had a global market share of 22% and a domestic market share of 32%."

    10. Zhang, Yi 张艺 (2022-06-10). ""电解液一哥"天赐材料推最高5亿元回购计划，能重返千亿市值吗？" ["Elder Brother Electrolyte" Tianci Materials launched a repurchase plan of up to 500 million yuan, can it return to the market value of 100 billion yuan?]. Jiemian [ zh (in Chinese). Shanghai United Media Group. Archived from the original on 2022-09-26. Retrieved 2022-09-26.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Since then, the performance of Tinci Materials has continued to grow rapidly, but the stock price has been stagnant. ... However, the market value was cut in half in half a year, and it fell to a market value of 100 billion. What is the reason? The growth of Tianci Materials is inseparable from the rise of the "Ning Wang" Ningde era. Last year's annual report showed that about 5.6 billion yuan in sales revenue of Tinci Materials came from CATL, accounting for half of the annual revenue. In 2020, the sales volume of Tinci Materials' largest customer is only over 1 billion yuan, and its revenue accounts for 25.56%. Therefore, every move in the Ningde era also affects the heaven-sent materials that are deeply bound to it. In the first quarter of this year, the performance of CATL declined."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tinci Materials ( simplified Chinese: 天赐材料; traditional Chinese: 天賜材料) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 06:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to evaluate the sources Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. I do not think that we should keep articles on the basis of analyst reports, as these reports serve only to communicate financial projections and price an equity and do not generally demonstrate social importance of the subject; Cunard is completely wrong about this. However, the company is WP:LISTED and seems to have reliable sources that talk about it; I also prefer to err on the side of caution when considering foreign companies for which sourcing is harder and Wikipedia page creation for SEO is less likely. The article is weak though, and it needs to concentrate on more than just the financial history of the company. FalconK ( talk) 22:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Sundial Collective

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. I am generally unable to find coverage of this company outside of local media; the sources in this article include small local newspaper Redding Record Searchlight and local television station KRCR-TV, and I'm not able to find coverage of this business outside of exclusively local stations and a trivial mention in a single trade journals (and, per WP:ORGIND there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability). Because this fails WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGCRIT notes that NCORP establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than we may see in other contexts, this should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
USA Today (redding.com) Yes Author is not connected to the topic Yes Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz No Article has only passing mention ✘ No
USA Today (redding.com) Yes Article is a video about this location by an established reporter Yes Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Unz ~ Video is a very brief interview with the owner but does not go in depth, honestly this is a bit of a gray area for me ~ Partial
ABC Affiliate (KRCR) Yes Author is established journalist Yes [ [31]] ~ Video is about one minute long and talks about the opening of the store, does not go in depth but has interviews with the general manager ~ Partial
ABC Affiliate (KRCR) Yes Author is established journalist and is not the same author as previous article from this source Yes [ [32]] Yes Article covers this store being bought by a local tribal group and goes in more depth than the previous article ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 03:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dr vulpes: Thank you for the source assessment table. Is there a reason you're applying GNG rather than NCORP here? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Nope, it's just what the template popped out, let me go back and see if it'll do SNG. Sorry if it caused any confusion, I completely agree with your assessment and nomination. The only reason I mentioned that there could be more coverage was incase someone had access to like a tribal newspaper that isn't online or something. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
That makes sense. With respect to tables, there is {{ ORGCRIT assess table}}, but it's really heavy to use don't think that there's anything akin to the SA Table Generator script that currently works on it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might have to try to create a modified version of that to work better with ORGCRIT. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
It's funny you mention that I was cleaning up after dinner and was thinking the same thing. It would be really helpful for AfDs. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 04:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment as nom. I think that the following NCORP Assessment Table might clarify some of the ambiguity with respect to the sources, which include another source I was able to find online:
NCORP table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes This seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG that is doing its own reporting Yes This is a WP:NEWSORG – Per WP:ORGDEPTH, of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops is considered trivial coverage. The coverage here doesn't seem to be solely about the opening of the store, but the remaining coverage is borderline. Yes This is not a mere interview or listing of primary sources —
Yes This seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG that is doing its own reporting Yes This is a WP:NEWSORG No Sundial Collective is mentioned once, in passing The mention of Sundial Collective is too brief to evaluate whether there is secondary coverage of it in this article.
No Per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is a raw video of an interview with the article subject's then-owner. Yes Why not? – I agree with Dr.Vulpes's concern raised in the GNG assessment table above No Raw video of an interview with the subject's owner is not a secondary source.
KRCR (1)
 Yes Seems to be reported independently Yes This is a local WP:NEWSORG No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops is considered trivial coverage. This piece is wholly about the opening of a local cannabis store. Yes why not?
KRCR (2)
 – KRCR itself is an independent newsorg, but per WP:ORGIND, we also need independent content, which means that it includes independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I really don't see much of any of that here, with the vast majority being quotes or statements attributed to the owner or purchaser. Yes Local WP:NEWSORG. No Per WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices or routine coverage of the of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business is considered to be trivial coverage. This is a standard and routine report about the acquisition of a local business. – The vast majority of this is direct quotes or statements attributed to people. There might be some sort of the author's own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, but the extent appears to be rather limited.

On top of the above, even if these sources were enough to contribute towards notability, we're still dealing with a substantial WP:AUD problem inasmuch as these are both subregional (i.e. local) publications. I truly can't find any coverage of this entity even in broader regional media, which is the death knell for the article subject's notability in my view. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 13:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_2&oldid=1115131265"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE